don't operate on the roads and rip them up, you don't pay for them. and the same with transit and the same with everything else. so you have to get in to these folks' offices during your time here. and i'm going to tell you right now that if you go in and say boy we know times are tough and so we're just sort of -- if you could hold us at the safety lu lels we'll be appreciative. that's nuts. you're going to have to say, gas prices are expected to hit 5 bucks this summer. how are we going to move people, employ people, build america, put people back to work unless you have a robust funding stream in the transportation sector? . . [applause] . .

when they are going to have a job and whether they can feed and clothe their families. if you live in and do not choose to do that, shame thatlimp -- limp in and choose not to do that, shame on you. this is a big deal. this new bunch that was elected in my party, they are serious.

they are serious. so serious that they changed the house rules at the beginning. we try to get them not to change the rules, but they changed it. no longer are the authorizations' coupled with the appropriation -- with the appropriations. it does not have to be what is coming in from the trust fund. this is a big fight. if you do not treated as a big fight, things are going to happen to you. i will close and let my friend continue. i hope you have a happier speech that i have. i am from ohio. we are celebrating. this is the first year in eight years that we have not had an ohio member of congress in prison. [applause] [laughter] we are happy about that.

i will close with this story about why this illustrates why this is important and why what you did last time does not matter. this is a new battle. there was a story told to me by one of the fellows in prison who was just recently released. he got out of prison and ran for congress again. being a felon does not exclude you. you cannot hold office in the state of ohio, but you can be a congressman or a senator. he told the story of these three televangelists and their wives who were driving in a bus and tragedy strikes. a train strikes the bus and they are all dispatched to heaven. st. peter is at the gate. the first one says, i deserve to get in. st. peter says, you love money

be more -- you love money more than you love the lord. that is -- that is why your name is patty. you are not getting in. the second guy -- that is why your wife's name is pending. the second guy comes up, and st. peter says, you cannot come in because you love liquor more. your wife's is named brandy. the third guy looks up and says, we are not getting in. [applause] [laughter] my time is up. thank you. >> that is why i am glad to be from the midwest. common sense. we are going to hear some more common sense and some more truth telling. that is where it is clear to me that that is where our message needs to be. congressman earl blumenauer, a

longtime friend of transit and supporter of transit and builder of transit in islam community of oregon has represented the third district of -- transit in his community of oregon and has represented the third district of oregon for many years. please join me in welcoming to the podium the honorable earl blumenauer. [applause] >> thank you, bill, i appreciate your partnership over the years. it is a pleasure to be on the platform with a gentleman who is my friend, steven latourette. i think i agree with 99% of what steve just said. it is hard to get an opinion

from him sometimes. i do appreciate his consistency. week served for over 10 years on the transportation infrastructure committee. we watched what happened with mr. schuster and it was a great training. it was great to be part of that. i deeply appreciate steve, even though he has transitioned to appropriations. he keeps his interest in infrastructure and rebuilding and tries to keep things real on the house floor. this is what please he is willing to partner with me to convene some prayer meetings. some of you have been a part of them. we have brought together a wide range of constituents dealing with infrastructure, how you reach new and rebuilt the country. being able to strategize together is never more important to do than this year.

i left the transportation infrastructure committee with the idea that i wanted to make sure there was more money for the all the risers to authorize thefor steve to spend the-- authorizers to authorize and for steve to spend. i am happen to find mechanisms like a barrel tax. the-happy to fund -- happy to fund mechanisms like the barrel tax. we are moving to a vehicle miles traveled feet. steve is right -- miles travel fee.

people who use the system helped pay for the system. there is a connection there. we are severing the relationship between road utilization and balance of fuel consumed. we are seeing hyper-efficient diesel trucks. we are revising the efficiency standards for passenger cars. last year, congress did that. we are looking at plus get hybrid cars -- we are looking at plug in hybrid cars. last congress, we were talking to budget and ways and means about revenues. the president of aaa without that the last time we increase the federal gas tax, in 1993, -- increased the federal gas tax,

the average american is paying less than 50% today per mile than they did in 1993. the cost of wear, care, congestion have not -- wear, tear, congestion have not declined. you know that it is a budget issue. what i think is an unfortunate budget resolution -- continuing resolution -- passed by the house has some see the degette reductions in transit that would have an impact of -- passed by the house had some significant reductions in transit that will have an impact of 250,000 jobs.

pressure for operations could not be more ill-timed. it is a matter of energy security. who knows how high event in the middle east will develop to the point where we are talking about $150 or $250 a barrel for oil. it is in the realm of possibility to hit at $5 per gallon mark. it puts us in a vulnerable position as a nation. in terms of national security, we would not be about in the middle east the way we are investing as much if it was not for our reliance on oil that they are not making any more of and that is increasingly extracted from dangerous places and increasingly in a 30-year and -- dirtier and dirtier

fashion. many of you remember what happened to our capital on 9/11. the city would not have functioned without the chances -- without the transit system. the about what happened with rica and katrina. -- rita and katrina. there are 1/3 of the people who cannot and should not drive. they need to have access as well. you are here at a fascinating time. steve hinted at that in his own understated fashion. wo opposingching to world views that are acting their way out.

steve and i are middle of the road guys and we agree. some are convinced that the united states is on its way to being greece and that we are right on the edge of financial collapse, spiraling debt, the inability to function as a nation and it is because we have spent too much, borrow too much, and overregulated the economy. , and what we need to do is and rein in the regulations to bring forward this new dawn of prosperity, freedom, peace, and harmony. there is a slightly opposing point of view that thinks the way the economy was teetering on the edge and almost went over was not because we had too much regulation but because we had no

adults supervision with the geniuses on wall street pushing the limits and instead of a problem of over investing in infrastructure, the problem is that the economic recovery act was too timid and did not have enough structure. we need to be invested in renewing and rebuilding this country with the bill of an energy and putting this country together to be on par with our competitive -- our competitors on the world. not the least of which countries like japan -- excuse me -- china and india. there is not a lot of overlap in those the use -- those views. you have an opportunity to agree with steve and me to come back where we can -- to come back to where we can get things done. you can make the case in a practical sense of what

difference transit and your investment has made in your community, what difference it makes in terms of the fabric of the community, the environment, being able to deal with social equity. you have a case to make. i am proud of what we have done in portland, oregon over the last 30 years. transit made it possible for portland to be the nation's most popular european city. there is a joke about young people going there to retire. but the quality of life is good enough that people feel like they are retiring. we have an opportunity to stress in our downtown, our neighboring community. we give people transportation choices. there has been spectacular re- investment that would not have been possible had it not been for transit. we need you to advocate for what

transit means to you now and what it will mean in the future. we need you to advocate for a national framework with the reauthorization. we cannot model -- muddle along. we did 12 extensions. this is no way to run a railroad, a transit agency, a road the garment trade is in the way to be able to deal with the problems that our communities have. we do need more money. absolutely. this is adjusted for inflation. we are watching a decline of our infrastructure. the percentage of our gross national product -- this is a minuscule percentage. i have been working with my colleagues on the budget committee and ways and means to raise the profile of this.

i am excited about what came out of the deficit-reduction commission. we had a luncheon last week with some members of the budget committee, senator simpson and erskine bowles. they proposed 15 cents in gas taxes based in -- phased in to help deal with transportation. we are shoveling general fund money. $34 billion to keep this funding level afloat. there is a need to reform the system. i am absolutely convinced that with your help and with our friends secretary ray lahood and with the administration that we can have a leiter -- lighter federal touch. there was a time when every new fund was an experiment. gary thomas can keep track.

the fact is, these are not experiments. people know what to do. if you have a response will agency with a track record, cut them loose, make them responsible for results, and we can fast track this stuff. there can be a leiter -- light touch. finally, it is important to make the local connection with people on capitol hill whatever their ideology, wherever they are from, whatever their party. as i work around the country, i am in a different community once or twice a month. i am struck how, at the local level, building and the new wing is not partisan. there is broad agreement from -- building a renewing is not

partisan. there is broad agreement. it is important to move forward. it would have done it in phoenix or dallas. if you can help us translates that broad, bipartisan support for what you are doing locally or having a reasonable federal partnership, it will make a huge difference for people like steve and me to be able to advocate for you go with our. -- going forward. thank you very much. [applause] >> more common sense for both gentlemen. both have agreed to take a question or two. if someone was to step up to the microphone and get a little more and format -- more

information from our guests, we would be pleased to answer. yes? >> congressman, you promised you would be an original sponsor of the complete street bill. i would like to hear a little bit on your commitment to complete streets and with the transit movement is trying to do. >> i did. when you are surrounded by all of these people wearing spandex clothing, their muscles are a lot bigger than they look normal. i indicated i was a co-sponsor of complete streets. we started out with a rocky experience when we had the hearing. you may have read it was reported that i suggested secretary lahood was on drugs. i did not do that. i asked if he wanted to go in

baby highway trust fund for complete streets -- go invade the highway trust fund for complete streets and have mandatory drug testing. having been through the complete conversion, i am convinced that complete streets is a good piece of legislation. the initiative is a good one for agencies -- or areas that are exploring it. it has michael sponsorship and my full support. -- it has sponsorship and my full support. what a big disappointment we had with the bush administration -- one of the big disappointments we had with the bush administration was that they said they eliminated funding and they thought they could have plenty of money to get things done. that is clearly not the case.

we need our money. not only for the surface program, but for transit and for complete streets. i am proud to be a supporter. i want to make one observation based on what earl said. some people have come to town and want to slash spending and reduce taxes. i was horrified when president obama said that in the state of the unit. [laughter] it cost me -- it caught me off guard. >> i am from the apple city transit coalition. we have done work in ohio in the rain county. -- in lorraine county. your courageous comment about getting in their face might be an opportunity for the grass

roots advocates to go in and tell a story about the fact that in this last election cycle, 77% of transit referenda past. would it make sense to tell folks if they see what they are paying for, they will support it? we will it up with a patchwork of county stuff, local stuff. what would be the national response, specifically, that you would recommend to solve that problem? both of you can answer, please. [laughter] >> one of my disappointments about the stimulus bill and some of the things going on in the country now is that my view has always been that the formula for the states has worked well.

there has been a shift under both of the last administration. they have squirreled money away in the department. it is nice if you get a grant for $400 million like you did in ohio for in the corridor that the governor gave back. but it does not take care of the entire country. i would like to see -- and i think earl and i have talked to the passenger real people in ohio -- the restoration of true passenger rail in the united states would take care of some of this. it is going to take big money and a real investment. it is embarrassing as an american when i travel over to asia or to europe -- i know they

do not have the freight rail makes -- to see how they move people. i am a "if you build it, they will come" kind of guy. the former governor rolled it out in a horrible way. people were not ready to hop on board. if you were to build a truly high-speed -- high-speed being 110 miles or above -- border between cleveland and chicago -- i think you can change the public debate. once people see that it is cost effective and we can compete with the 400 mile airline trip or less, it becomes a reality.

you have to build the line and work collaboratively. in ohio, we are lucky to have project.hub one of the line goes from cleveland to youngstown to pittsburgh. imagine the sports fans being lectured -- getting liquored up and go into a game? >> i believe these are issues of regional, multistate significance. these corridors are expensive. we need to have a harmonizing approach to dealing with them. federal money can help do that, provide a boost that otherwise

would not be available and to do it in a way that is systemic in nature. 42% of the airline trips in the united states are 350 miles or less. we talked about gasoline prices going up. when fuel costs are predicate on petroleum at $100 per barrel or $150 per barrel, this ceases to make sense. it is much more efficient for the 350 mile trip to be higher speed rail. we have simple technology to have 110 miles per hour. that is in our capacity. it will not take much for people to log on and support it. my hope is it is in the context of broader legislation so that we are dealing with freight, we

are dealing with passenger movement, we are dealing with the intermodal connections rather than piecemeal. >> jerry, you get our last question. make it a good one. >> i will preface my question by saying i am a former elected officials. i have been on your side of the microphone. i sincerely appreciate you two come out and being willing to expose yourselves. following congressman latourette -- the response to this question is going to be complicated. up or down opinion on domestic

oil drilling including anwar and offshore. thank you. >> i happen to be a co-sponsor of something called all of the above. all of the above includes all of the above. all of the things you just mentioned, including nuclear. it does not include greenhouse gases. we have something that sits on the shore of lake erie. most of the kids i went to high school with got to go to college because mom or dad weren't building a nuclear power plant. i am an all the above kind of guy. i want to be clear since i see a television camera in the back. earl and i have never expose ourselves. [laughter]

>> thanks for your question. we had a chance to have a little bit of daylight between us. i have strong feelings that we have got to get real about our energy utilization. the notion that if we drained this country dry of our petroleum reserves that it is going to make any difference on gas prices this summer, next summer, the year after that is a pipe dream. there is a global pool of oil. we consume 22% of it. that is a disproportionate amount. we all have 20% of the world's petroleum. a smart percent would not train them as quickly as possible. the majority of the benefit would go to the chinese, or the japanese, or the europeans. it would not go to us.

you can make all sorts of jobs with infrastructure and energy facilities. there is a reason there has not been a nuclear plant built in the united states in 30 years. wall street does not want to ensure them. they think it is risky. look at what is going on in japan right now as an indication of some of the questions. i would think we would get a lot further a lot faster by moving away from our hopeless addiction to petroleum that we deal with alternative energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, which are american sources where there are lots of jobs to be created. it will not be something that puts us at risk. we will develop our petroleum.

we will continue doing it. but i think the notion that we drain it dry and we charge royalties that are lower than almost anybody else in the world and most of the states, that we are giving this oil away -- i think we need to have a reset on that. we need to think about that petroleum that is going to be precious. we need to conserve it. we need to deal with alternatives and be more effective in the infrastructure that means we are not so heavily dependent. it is in saying that people have to burn one done of gas to buy 1 gallon of milk. there are lots -- born 1 gallon of gas to buy 1 gallon of milk. >> please join me in thanking steven latourette and earl

blumenauer. >> president obama leaves on a four day trip to latin america. the first stop is brazil. he will deal with u.s./brazil relations. the nexte in chile day. the president and first lady end their trip in el salvador. mrs. obama will meet with students to talk about education. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this weekend on were to the white -- this weekend on wrote to the white house "." -- "road to the white house," herman cain. this sunday at 6:30 p.m. and

9:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. in the 1960's and 970's, we were working on working america. with the emergence of wall street, new york city became america's gateway to that the economy and has proffered -- has prospered ever since. "q &nday night on c-span's a." >> energy secretary steven chu talked about the department's budget. this portion is one hour, 35 minutes.

>> we have provided the japanese government with expertise in a variety of areas. as part of that effort, the department of energy has sent experts to japan. we are positioning response teams in japan. these teams have the skills, expertise, and equipment to assess, survey, and monitor areas. they include small groups that can be sent out for technical

information in the area. we have detectors, analytical equipment, and the equipment for assessing contamination on the ground. the department is also monitoring activities through the d.o.e. technical team. the american people can have full confidence that there are regulations in place to ensure that nuclear power is generated safely and responsibly. information is still coming in about events over -- events unfolding in japan. we will work to continue to strengthen america's nuclear and -- nuclear industry. we will always possibly develop

america's nuclear resources. we will cooperate lessons learned in that process. the administration believes we must rely on a diverse set of energy sources including renewable, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear power. we'll look forward to a dialogue with congress in moving that agenda forward. president obama has a plan to win the feature by out educating and out i18 in beijing -- innovating the future. president obama has called for increased investment in the cream -- in the clean energy research. he wants to generate 20% of

america's energy sources by 2035. the government does not need to pick favorites. the most competitive clean energy sources will win in the marketplace. events related activities account for the best defense related activity account for over half -- defense related activitie account for half. the government supports the development and employment of renewable energy. it helps reduce our dependence on oil by developing the next

generation of biofuels. the budget supports lawns or renewals. nuclear energy also has -- the budget supports loans for renewals. it also invests in new cheek -- in nuclear technology. the budget and less $5.50 -- $550 in advance -= advanced energy.n another key piece of our research effort is the energy

innovation hub. they bring together our top scientists and engineers to achieve energy goals. a concentrated effort is needed to establish leadership. the budgets request -- the budget requests $146 million. to meet our energy goals, we must take a portfolio approach, pursuing several strategies. we have a 360 degree view of how the pieces fit together. in addition to strengthening our economy, the budget requests

strengthen our security by providing a $11.80 billion. we are mindful of -- we are mindful of our responsibility to the taxpayer. we are eliminating unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies. the united states faces a choice today. will we out compete the rest of the world or will we fall behind? to lead the world in clean energy, we must act now. we cannot afford not to. i will be pleased to answer any questions you have. >> because of the event in japan, chernobyl, and three mile island, the news media is focused on what is happening in japan and the impact that would

have on nuclear power in america. it is my understanding that the international atomic energy agency has a seven level international nuclear and radiological events scale. on that scale, the event that occurred in japan was at a level that much. three mile island was a level 5. -- on that scale, the event that occurred in japan was at a level four. my question is -- i read an article recently about three mile island. it said, a person standing at the property line at three mile island during that event would have received a dose of representative -- radiation equivalent to a chest x-ray and a cat scan.

as a lay man, that does not sound like a lot of exposure. i was just curious. are you aware of that kind of exposure at three mile island. you have any additional information on that? >> my knowledge of three mile island comes from and the nrc report issued after the analysis had been done. what i remember is, within a 20 mile radius, the average exposure of those people closest to three mile island was a small fracture of background radiation. it could have been on a scale of 1%. that is what i recall. >> it is important that we talk about that. safety is an important issue. we do not want the american people to be panicked about any of this. did you have an additional common? >> i do.

the events unfolding in japan appear to be more serious than three mile island. to what extent, we do not really know. they are unfolding on a hour by hour basis. we do not know what is happening in detail. this is why the department of nrc is there, not only to help assist the japanese power companies and the japanese government, but for our own sake to know what is happening through our own intelligence. >> the government is offering any and all assistance that is requested? >> that is correct. >> it is my understanding that the department of energy and the u.s. government has entered into

contracts to take their waste material from the operation, their reactors. lawsuits were eventually filed by the industry against the federal government for a violation of that contract. is that the case? >> that is the case. >> do you know what the total amount of judgments against the u.s. is today? >> i do not exactly recall. there have been some judges. they are non-trivial. the money could be used by the industry to help restore the site. >> i do not know if be -- if my information is correct. there has been club does billion in judgments already. does that sound in -- there has

been $12 billion in judgments already. >> we will get you the exact number. >> i am assuming this is an ongoing legal action. is that correct? >> it is a legal action in the sense that we have a responsibility to provide for the storage of the nuclear waste. as we see that, what happens is -- the nrc has determined that storage at the size is a safe procedure and has been for half a century. we do not have the capability to take care of it right now. >> my last question is not a question. with your staff be able to provide me with information on

the dollar value of loans, loan guarantees, and grants that the department of energy may be making for wind and solar projects in the u.s.? >> yes. we would be able to provide that. >> thank you. recognize the i re gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am going to get my questions about japan as an over with, ok? the first question i have. as far as security, can you assure the members of this committee and the american that what happened in

japan cannot happen here in america at any of our nuclear power sites? >> we are going to be looking closely at the events happening in japan and take those lessons. you can be a short that with the nrc leading, and the department of energy applying any assistance -- to look at the nuclear plants and look hard to see how to possibly upgrade the security. we do not believe there is imminent danger. in any instance like this, when there are truly unfortunate events like what we are seeing in japan, we look and we learned from that. this is true of all of the transportation technology, energy technology, you name it.

we will be looking carefully and gathering whatever lessons can be learned from that double disaster, the fourth largest earthquake in recorded history and the huge tsunami. we will take those lessons and apply them to all the nuclear facilities we have in the united states. not only earthquakes, but a violent storms, and everything, anything that could affect them. >> i have been told that as far as natural disasters, it would be fairly difficult to have duplicated and repeated what happened in japan happen here in america as far as man- made disasters. i have also been told that our number one threat to our nuclear

facilities is terrorism. we should keep a sharp eye on terrorism at our nuclear facilities. can you expand on the level of activity at the deal we -- activity at the doe and paris the attacks that might have the same result or different results? -- terrorist attacks that might have the same result or different results? >> i can vouch for the department of energy nuclear facilities. they have extraordinarily high security measures. whether it is terrorism or natural disasters, and what did they have threats that are higher or lower, we are

dedicated to preventing them from happening. >> on the publican repos -- republican proposed continuing resolution plan, which includes funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects -- can you speak on cutting funds for renewable sources of energy under the renewable guarantee program to about how important is it that we invest in renewable energy. >> we asked for additional funds to help support loan guarantees and for expanded loan authority -- expend authority so that we could invest in energy guarantees. without that additional loan

guarantee authority, many of the projects that would also help unleash private capital would not both will work. that would mean a significant decrease in job creation going toward. it would set that what we are trying to do in starting our economy and in having developed resources that would give a signal to the industries in the united states to be developing these sources. we want to give that signal because it is a competitive world out there. it is going to be a race to develop these technologies that will be in demand worldwide. >> thank you. >> at this time, i recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i have a number of questions. i will abide with the five minute rule. i have the same complaint with you that i had with your predecessor. from time to time, we hear the department give us gas estimates. i wonder if we are not going to hit those estimates by the end of the week and not by memorial day. i heard a national report that the department was estimating that gas prices would be $3.70 by memorial day. a gas station i was passing going into the office from northern and virginia was already at 389. it is high -- $3.89. it is higher than that all across the country. "usa today" had a headline, will that be $4 by the end of

the mont? -- the month. ? if you look at the time from 2009 to 2012, the department of defense estimates we will get ess then we letl got in 2009. where did you think we will be? this was before and libya and egypt and all of the different things were happening in the middle east. where did you really think we will be on gas prices, something that is on every person's mind across the country? >> there is an official prediction. >> it must be career bureaucrats.

whether it is republican or democrats -- >> independent of any political influence -- in any case, gas prices in washington, d.c. our higher than other places in the country. i do not know what the gas prices will be this summer. the mean projection is $3.70. we do not really know. i do not have any better crystal ball than you do on that. in terms of the oil production in the united states, you were talking about the oil production in the gulf of mexico. i believe you were talking about

what was happening -- there was a suspension of deep water exploration. the oil production in the gulf has continued. the shallow water oil exploration has continued. deep water permiting has restarted. >> they are down from the projections for months ago or five months ago. they are down from the trend line between 2009 and 2012. >> if you look at the total oil production in the united states, we are seeing increased oil production in the continental united states. we are expecting to see an increase in oil production from shale rock. it is uncertain how much that will grow. it is a couple hundred thousand

barrels per day. could increase in the near future. we are also looking at the total oil production in the united states. >> i know you have been in contact with your counterparts in japan. is there anything they had asked for that we have not done? >> to my knowledge, no. they have airborne radiation detectors and things of that nature. we are continuing to offer help and they are taking it. >> i said 450 million in declining production -- i sent you a letter in that you are asking questions about the nuclear waste policy act. if you could take a look at the

letter and give us your response, that would be terrific. thank you. >> at this time, i recognize the gentleman from california for his questions or five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, after chernobyl, people said what happened there could not happen in the united states because their nuclear infrastructure was not as advanced as our own. the chernobyl plant was not designed with the safeguards we have in the united states. but japan is a highly developed country. it is as technologically did this -- technologically sophisticated as us. it is concerned that similar pacts -- acts could happen here. how do you respond to that concern? >> the trouble facility had no

containment vessels. we are looking at what is happening in japan. as you say, they are using more advanced designs. there are a number of reactors in the united states with similar design. we are going to look at what went wrong in terms of the double whammy of the earthquake and the huge tsunami. we will look at our reactors and learn as much as we can so that we can improve the safety. we are always increasing the safety of our reactors and the safety of all our industrial systems. >> two days ago, a number of us wrote to chairman upton requesting that the committee hold a hearing on the safety of

nuclear power plant in the united states. the think we should investigate to ensure the safety of our nuclear plants -- do you think we should investigate to ensure the safety of our nuclear plants? >> that would be a natural consequence. >> quite frankly, i think we have a responsibility in congress for our oversight and investigative purposes since we write the laws. let me ask you about the laws we are writing. we are trying to figure out our energy policy. the republican energy policy seems to be depending on coal, oil, and nuclear power. that is what they look to for the future. in fact, it has been the past. we have a problem of climate

change because of the carbon and other greenhouse gases. we have a problem now that so much of our eggs are in the nuclear basket. when we look at the republican budget, they are putting in billions of dollars of investment and thousands in the construction -- and thousands of permanent jobs are going to nuclear. they are rescinding of a lot such as renewable energy, and energy efficiency. just to dramatize this issue, republicans would rescind $25 billion of the $47 billion in loan guarantee authority that was provided to you in 2009, but they preserve $20.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear

energy, while leaving only $1.5 billion for all other technologies. they say they're for and all of the above strategy. that is a new clear strategy to meet. i would like you to explain why it is so important for america to look at other projects to move us away from dependence on oil, coal, and maybe even new clear for our future. >> -- nuclear for our future. >> certainly, if you look at what will be happening in the future, we think the possibility of solar power coming down in price -- the business community thinks the full cost of solar- generated electricity will be cut in half. we have had a number of work groups. we think it is very possible that by the end of this decade,

it perhaps can be cut to 25% of what is today. >> they will be competitive if we make an -- investments in them? >> it will be very competitive, and realizing there is a reasonable probability that solar energy and other renewable energy can be competitive with fossil fuel by the end of this decade -- >> nuclear energy is not competitive if the government does not subsidize it? is that correct? >> i think nuclear and renewals need help. going forward, we are trying to figure out a plan where none of those would need subsidies. >> at this time, i will recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes apart >> mr. secretary, thank you. i've a lot of questions. i will try to get through my list.

i was just say to the chairman, and that is why kohl will be king. -- coal will be king. i had a visit by a battery technology guy says he was left out of your office. my concern is that there is already a designed to leave. if someone comes with someone -- designed the least. and something comes -- and someone comes with something new, the one i get a fair hearing impaired can we talk about this? we do not wanted to research, -- to do research, if the new entity comes in, we want to give them fairness. can you define clean? >> we start with traditional public and start >> the pollutants in the clean air act? >> yes, and that includes carbon

dioxide. >> that is good. a lot of people will not add that. they will stay clean, but not address the co2 issue. just a message, waxman-markey failed as a national policy to the legislative policy because the public decided not to price carbon. we had that argument yesterday. we have a bill moving through the floor of the house that will start addressing the epa, but we need another approach, and i would say energy security is a better way to bring both sides together than pricing carbon. it was established in 1977 -- and our reliance on imported crude oil was around what percentage? >> something around 25%. >> i thought maybe 35%. >> what is it today? >> it is about 50%, 51%.

>> can we say we have made any great strides over 25 years? >> no, in fact a little while ago it was close to over 60%. >> future generation, two 0.0, is that really bush generation, 1.0. ? >> noaa. -- no. >> i followed future generation. it was a new coal plant. 2.0 -- isn't that what future generation is? >> no. >> using hydrogen turbine? >> yes. >> my point is, if just for clarity, when we are retro- fitting, that really was a

bullish plan? ?hat is -- bush plan >> it certainly was a bush plan. this future generation is slightly different because it is burning in an oxygen atmosphere. >> thank you. i got the answer that i needed. we want to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. senator obama joined senator money to push a legislation through the senate. what is the position on the those technologies? >> if there are new coal-to- liquid technologies. i'm not talking about the old ones invented during world war two by germany. in the new ones, we have to capture the carbon dioxide.

indeed, the national academy of sciences has issued a report looking at the mixture of coal and biomass gasification methods to then create liquids with carbon capture. >> it is my understanding the carbon footprint is actually lower than crude oil refineries in that design. >> significantly lower. it actually becomes negative. >> we want to be helpful in that. >> ls question is one of the risks in did japan is that one of their offline nuclear power plants have a storage pool that went to dry. is that correct? >> we do not know. >> that is what the industry reports are. >> there are so many conflicting reports. >> there are 11 pulls within 40 miles within downtown chicago. what did not make sense to have one center location for storage of high-level nuclear waste,

like you identified in your report when you're the lab director when you said licensing in the yucca mountain as a long- range? >> at a nuclear reactor site, immediately after you take out the fuel rod and put them in in, you will need to put them in water pools. that a short-term storage. yet come out and is long term. >> -- yucca mountain is long term. >> the gentleman put the time has expired. the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> mr. secretary, in a line of questioning, we had a lot of questions talking about solar and wind. does either have the potential in the next 10 years of ever becoming a stabilized base load like coal or nuclear, or even natural gas? >> it depends on the development of energy storage

technologies. you know that they are variable. when the wind stops blowing, or the son stops shining, they are not generating electricity. before that happens, you could certainly go to a reasonable fraction of our electricity use. countries like ireland are now 20% when coupled with fossil fuel. >> is there any country in the world, of denmark has led -- what is the percentage of wind, for example, in denmark? >> it is a little over 20%, 20- 25%, but it is coupled into a massive brick, so ireland is a better example. >> we have a much more difficult because texas is our own, and then of course, the east and west coast. the administration has proposed repealing numerous subsidies for

tax preferences on fossil fuels -- fuels. one was to help manufacturers maintain and create u.s. jobs. i am concerned about this because increasing costs for the domestic energy industry would jeopardize some small- business jobs and increase our reliance on foreign sources of energy. would you agree that increasing costs for domestic production would impact our ability to progress to climate change because it is a bridge, whenever we have, to nuclear, sold -- solar -- while providing affordable and reliable supplies for energy for american consumers? >> based on what has been happening in shell gas, and the lower gas prices, and the anticipation, natural gas prices will be low, there will be a

natural move toward gas, but i would also save the utility companies are very aware of the. if you still want a diverse set of energy sources. >> i know what could hurt us on our natural gas success in this country. we pay actually last permcf than anywhere else in the world. that is either through tax increases or limitations on hydro is fracturing, which could eliminate that 100 years of natural gas we have. to jump-start the domestic nuclear energy industry, your budget requests $36 billion in loan guarantees in the 30's for fyi 2012. how many do you think we would be able to support with that, even with the tragedy that is happening in the last few days? do think we should go forward after taking a breath to say what we need to do different? do you still think we need to go

for it the expansion of nuclear power in our country? >> i agree with you. they stem the events in japan, we need to look harder at these products -- projects and guarantee they can go forward in a safe way. to the specific question of the $36 billion, we believe that should be able to fund something like 6-8 projects. the loan guarantees could get 6- 8 projects going, and we believe that if they can proceed and be built on time, on schedule, there would be enough confidence that the private sector should be able to pick that up. >> ok. in the president's state of the union address, he had a goal of clean energy sources accounting for 80% of america's electricity by 2035. if we shut down our expansion of nuclear power like we did after three mile island, the

chernobyl, is there any possibility we could get anywhere near 80% clean-burning fuels? >> it would certainly make it harder. right now, we are 40% claim by the rough definition where you account for natural gas giving half credit. i think we will need, certainly, large increases in wind and solar, and clean coal, and i believe we will need to have some fraction coming from nuclear. >> i was surprised, and i know the energy institute, mr. chairman, but i was surprised of the billions hours of our country generates. japan is blessed with the availability of hydro power. we need to look at natural gas, nuclear, and coal. mr. chairman, thank you for your

patience. >> i would like to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, 45 minister >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you mr. secretary for being here. in light of what has happened in japan, i would like to hear what you believe president obama's position is on nuclear power in the united states? does he still support a rebirth of nuclear power and the construction of new plants next could you give us his best reach your best estimate of what his position is? >> i think the president and the administration believes we need to look closely at the events in japan, and we have to apply whatever lessons can and will be learned from what has happened and is happening in japan with those lessons, they would then be applied to look at our current fleet of reactors, to make sure they could be used safely, and also to look at how,

as one proceeds forward, that any lessons learned could be applied. he would be premature to say anything other than we will use this opportunity to learn as best we can, and looks carefully as how to go for part >> i am not sure what you just said. >> does the president support new nuclear power plant construction in the united states? >> the present budget is what it is, and we are asking for loan guarantees. the present budget is also calling for small reactors. that position has not been changed. >> so, that is a yes? >> that is 8 yes. >> good. that is what i wanted you to say. with regard to the loan guarantees that you just mentioned, given, again, what has happened, do you and the

president want the congress to support the full $36 billion to you have put in the president's budget? >> yes. >> ok, you are learning. you're not a nobel prizewinner for nothing, i guess. >> ok. this one will be a little bit trickier. you are the former director of a natural -- national laboratory and did an excellent job. i'm a big supporter of the national laboratories. i was hoping to have one in texas and one. . it was not funded under president clinton. having said that, and given the situation of our budget, if do you think it might be time to reevaluate the number of a master of -- nash -- national laboratories, and begin to come up with a plan to reorganize and consolidate them? >> you are right. that is tough. i would say that before we do

that, there is a lot of things we can do to look at how we can get real efficiency in what we do. even though the president and i firmly believe that the department of energy will play a critical role in guaranteeing the future prosperity of the united states in its research and development, if we do also recognize that we have to look to gain efficiencies wherever we can, and to streamline what we do, knowing that ultimately the money that we give to universities, off two national laboratories, and to help research in businesses, that is our real job. if the other structures are there to make sure we do this in the most responsible and intelligent ways possible. we'll be working very hard to look at how we can increase those deficiencies. >> well, i support the national

laboratories, but i think we ought to begin to reevaluate them in light of the budget, and also because perhaps some of their missions are not quite what they were when they were originally established. if my last question is again of a sensitive nature. we have had repeated security violations at the national laboratory. there have been a number of investigations and special task forces trying to get control of the security situation in terms of our national secrets in those institutions. can you elaborate, and tell the committee, what the status as of tried to make sure those laboratories are secure in terms of the secrets we have out there? >> i think the department of energy takes the security very seriously not only there, but

there are other laboratories that carry out classified information. we take those very, very seriously. i can give you the details. i have a slightly different view than you on the number of security violations, but every one of them we take seriously, and we would be glad to brief you and your staff on that trip >> i appreciate that kenneth thank you, mr. chairman. >> -- thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. >> i recently toward the university of california santa barbara institute for efficiency which was named a frontier research center by your department. i was pleased you mentioned your support for this program. as you know, they are researching energy-saving. i am so impressed by the professors and students, especially if their commitment

to the commercialization of new technologies. so, would you talk for a minute or two of the house budget -- how your budget request will support the administration's effort to get projects from the laboratory and the marketplace with a direct impact on the economy? >> certainly. the budget request and the office of signs that is funding the group you are speaking about, is precisely the kind of research we will need to ensure that america stays at the forefront in these developing technologies. it is a very competitive world out there. currently, the united states makes the best led's, but we could easily lose that lead. korea, china, japan, and europe wants to take this away. actually, we are trying to recapture the lead in things we have lost like advanced battery technology. what we are seeing coming out of universities and national

labs are the next generations of new batteries, where i think we can recapture that lead. these are multi-billion dollar markets in the future, and this goes to the heart of what the budget request is about. in this very competitive world, where all other companies and countries are trying to say we want to own this share, this is what is galling to be a risk. >> i also wanted to ask you about the state energy program. decrease support will limit efficiency aid to small businesses and families as well as our local governments. as you mentioned, efficiencies will produce major energy and cost savings. if that is been demonstrated over time. i have been told there is $300 million savings annually, and leverages $10 in private money for every dollar of government money spent. would you describe how the cuts,

particularly those proposed by the republican majority, which affect local clean energy initiatives, would you anticipate job losses from the cuts, and how would the effect small businesses, not to mention homeowners, tried to reduce their energy bill? >> they certainly will have the impact you talk about, and this is one of those areas where we have to make some tough choices. you know, we had a very good state energy program in the recovery act, and we will have to work with congress going forward on whenever budgets they give us to proportion money between research and development, and things like the state energy program. >> finally, i want to ask you about the innovative approaches to generating electricity from a renewable spread i have a

particular company in mind. right now the department has planned funding for nine companies with active projects, including a company based in my congressional district. first, and can you talk about the promise of marine renewals, and second, are you concerned that cuts to clean energy programs like this one might slow down the development o broadband deployment of murdering riegle's? >> again, the cards would definitely effect the research. -- got cots definitely what is that the research. in marine we nobles, i think you are referring to kinetic energy techniques. there are at least 1000 companies that are looking into this, both in the united states and abroad. it is something that is a

research project, so we do not really know whether it will have wide deployment, but it is an area where there is tremendous energy in the ocean waves and currents. >> the steps your department is taking to mitigate environmental impact on the coastal area? >> it is all part of the package, because we all know that whatever form of energy production we use, they could easily have environmental impact, and you do this at the very beginning, because in the city tell, what you want to do is develop technology that can actually be deployed, and there would not be strong objections to that deployment. it is always part of the package. >> thank you. >> this time, dr. cassidy of louisiana is recognized for five

minutes. >> now, i am struck that you mentioned the subsidies, the heightened or continued subsidies for wind, solar, and other renewable energy. i am looking at something from the energy and -- information administration, and it says that of 2007, the subsidy and support per unit of production of solar is $24.34 per megawatt power, for wind is $23, for coal it is 44 cents, for natural gas and petroleum liquids, it is 35 cents. given that there is a 100 times increased subsidy for solar and wind, how much subsidy is required for us to take wind and solar up to 25% of our great,

and can we afford that subsidy? >> there are two ways to calculate subsidies kiwanis by dollar amount, and the fracture of energy produced. >> doesn't that seem like the more reasonable way? if something is 50% of our production, to take the ethics of a number is a bit misleading. >> it really depends. if you look a subsidy of oil and gas, beginning with the 20th century -- >> i did not mean to interrupt, but just to take electricity, because there is the megawatt power in the subsidies per. it is $25, roughly, for solar and wind, off 25 cents for natural gas per megawatt power. how long can we subsidize solar

and wind, and how can we afford it if we're going to increase it to 25% of our electrical use? >> i certainly think that wind and solar f should not have any longer subsidies that oil and gas, which is 80 or 90 years part >> will it take 80 or 90 years? my concern is, obviously if others have attempted to do this. if there is renewable power news, which is kind of an added -- advocacy group. i am quoting from an article they wrote. their use of renewable energy has been associated with an astronomical rise in energy prices, which is equally resulted in higher inflation and decreasing levels of competitiveness, which is an alarming threat to a feeble economy. not to put money -- words in your ma -- mouth, but added

committing to 80 years? >> excellent doctor we are developing plans as to what we can do to bring the cost of renewable energy down to the cost of fossil fuel, and we're talking about a decade, maybe is maximum turn the world raising the -- racing ahead, and the drop in price will be very fast. >> my concern is, there are certain laws of physics. the battery capabilities to stores and huge numbers, it does not releasing that it is ready for commercial use in the next decade. he our hydro power ability is limited. clearly, it works in denmark because they have a lot hydropower. in my state, the peking plant

will be cold or if natural-gas. he still get -- coal or natural gas. you still get emissions. if this works with hydropower, what you do elsewhere? >> denmark has access to other grids. they have access to other sources of energy outside of their own borders. in terms of batteries, what we are seeing, we are pretty certain that within the next couple of years, the battery storage technology that begins to go to a utility scale will be dropping, perhaps by 50%. >> will it be adequate to, say, power washington, d.c., if we have windmills blow in, and the wind stops blowing? >> i think it will take several decades to transition to

renewable to that extent, the you can get sued 20% or 30% without energy storage, but that will be an increasingly important part. >> we are circular. the peking plans would still be necessary, in which case you still have your emissions. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee. >> i was excited by your comments about prospective gains in solar. i just read that the folks that started will make a big investment in a group that -- that started google. could you tell us why you think we could get these big advances in solar, and what do you think realistic projections are for those offenses? >> within a decade, there somewhere between a 50% drop and

a 70% drop in the cost of. that includes the installation costs, the electronics cost, the full cost. we do not know which of the technologies will work, because silicon continues to make dramatic strides, and we are looking at dramatically changing the costs of the manufacturing. there are wonderful ideas out there that are being pursued by companies and researchers. there are a number of technologies. if you look at all of the companies, and all of the companies are looking at each other, we also need to increase the efficiency. we expect it to make climbs in efficiency. the thin film technologies are also beginning to make significant increases. so, there is a great deal of

excitement. when i talk to the manufacturers, they are pretty certain this drop will occur in this decade, and we think it can be better cared >> we will shoot for that. the republican budget has proposed a 35% cut in efficiency and renewable energy portfolio, and about half of that degree of a cut for nuclear. that does not make sense to me. it would seem we want a balanced portfolio. would you comment on that? >> we would like to see research, just as we like to support the engineering for small modular reactors, and for looking at how we can improve both the safety and the productivity of future nuclear power plants. in a balanced approach, we should be looking at renewables

as well. >> i want to ask about yucca mountain. my state has real issues cared we have paid about $300 million into the new killer -- nuclear waste fund. we are told that the office of civilian of radioactive waste has been proposed to shut down. in a state of washington, we need a solution. right now, we do not see a viable proposal by the it administration in this regard, and would like to see one in the near future. could you give us what auctions you intend to put on the table, because we like to see it move forward? >> as you well know, the waste treatment plant in hanford has gotten a lot of personal attention from me and my secretaries. we have put it on the table.

first, the contractor and all of the people involved -- we now have eight teams there. we propose to excel read the budget to drive this project forward, so it can be delivered on time, on budget. that is the first thing. if we get the material from those liquid waste tanks and into a much more stable form part >> we appreciate your work there, and we appreciate your leadership, but we're concerned about the depository. >> the first order of business is to stabilize the waste. the second order of business is that going forward we do need a plan. we believe we do not really have a coordinated plan, but that is the intent of the blue ribbon commission to look at what to do in the future beyond what we now have, beyond what the knowledge was when congress wrote the

nuclear waste act of 1982 and modified in 1985. a lot water has passed under the bridge, and so that is the charge of the committee. >> i suspect you know our position, but not only water over the bridge, but there is some radioactive water that may be burning right now, and we do have pools around this country that do present risks, not just financial risks. we will continue to press the administration on this issue. thank you, mr. secretary. >> at this time, i will recognize the gentleman from west virginia for five minutes. mr. mckinley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there were several questions i had with this. there has been a dialogue from people who have come before you and in this hearing have talked about coal subsidies.

could you share with us the companies that are being subsidized, and how ben is? people seem to be loosely applying their coal subsidies. i have had the opportunity to talk to quite a few coal companies and they're not getting any subsidies. the small operators assistance program -- there seems to be some funding difficulties with that, and i would appreciate if you could look into that. if your department is not freeing up money to the states to reimburse some of the small operators. also, as it relates to funding rate shares of cost/benefit ratio is for you, it was alleged that since you have been funded somewhere in the early 1970's, he probably receive something in the neighborhood of $800 billion in revenue to operate i am

curious, on a cost/benefit ratio, could you share with us, some time, if you could put to death from your staff, what the benefits are we have received -- put that from your staff, what the benefits are that we have received from the $800 billion? i am hoping that it is more than a one-one ratio. i wanted to talk about the national energy technology lab is that we have in pennsylvania, texas, oregon, alaska, west virginia. when i met with them, they have indicated they are the only laboratory that is owned and operated by the department of energy. there are indicating that you are proposing -- the budget

being proposed is going to reduce their expenditure by almost $800 million. that is very threatening. i see a paradox with this. i heard the administration talking about wanting to do more research and development in energy, but yet the very energy source, the laboratory they use on, is being reduced by $800 million -- the laboratory and that you saw and is being reduced by $800 million. if you could provide us something on that, because they are doing some wonderful things there, and they are trying to build research cooperatives with the universities in the area. for us to cut their expenditures at this time is just unconscionable. for example, with the marcellus

shell that we have in pennsylvania, new york, west virginia and the like, they're trying to find ways of getting more than 15% of the gas out. right now, that is all they're getting for all of that expenditure. they want to spend the money, yet the proposed budget is cut in the amount of money that we have for research. can you share by we are cutting money and energy resources -- research? >> i will get back to you on that. i certainly know the labs. we have an excellent laboratory director. i'm very positive about. i know what they are doing in terms of increasing malaysian shares with university. i will get -- increasing relationships with the universities.

i will get back to you. sigillate, the research that they do, we are very -- certainly, the research they do, we are very positive on that. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. this time, i will recognize the gentleman -- who is next? in the gentle lady matsui from california. >> thank you mr. chairman, and mr. secretary for being here today. i applaud your leadership on supporting investments in a clean energy technologies. they're critical for the economic growth in my home district of sacramento. the developing nuclear situation in japan has captured the attention of the world, and certainly this committee, and my thoughts and prayers are with the people of japan. mr. chairman, when chairman whitfield -- mr. secretary, when chairman would fill the s q about the crisis in japan, he

mentioned -- ask you about the crisis in japan, he said the situation was worse than that of three mile island. my interest and it is the big difference between three mile island and chernobyl, is that containment system was able to contain radioactive material, so most of that did not spread into the environment. at chernobyl, there was no containment, so the release of radioactive material the of the stated the soviet union and several other countries. -- devastated the soviet union and several other countries. mr. secretary, what happens if there is enough down in one or more of the japanese reactors, and the containment system fails? >> we think there is a partial meltdown, but as you correctly noted, that does not necessarily mean the containment vessel will fail.

three mile island had a partial meltdown, and it did not sell. we are trying to monitor it closely tied we hear several reports about what is happening. several reactors are at rest. i would not want to speculate at exactly what would happen, so let's just say we monitoring very closely and we will take it as it comes. >> i am match and we do not want to go there at all. we do not want this to become chernobyl. i would think that in the light of these events, the committee should investigate the safety of our own reactors. i know you said that, but i think this committee should take that seriously because we have an obligation to make sure our own reactors are safe. mr. chairman, in my home district of sacramento, we have a decommissioned nuclear power .lant

there are about 10 sites around the country were used nuclear fuel is being stored, but where the nuclear power plant has been dismantled. i am interested in knowing what is being done at the department of energy to prioritize these sites to moves the used fuel? how does your budget address these issues? >> i would have to get back to you on the details of the sites you are speaking to. there are various stages test ask you to a bus fuel rods out of the reactors, you will put them in a -- there are various details. -- there are various aspects. heat after you take the fuel rods out of the reactors, you will put them in a pool. it has recently been ruled that

on-site dry cask storage would be a safe answer room, some were on a scale of 50 or 60 years, and that gives us time to develop a coherent, integrated strategy. >> so we have maybe 50 or 60 years? >> we hope to develop it sooner than that. >> ok. great. mr. secretary, we are fortunate that we have our clean hydro power. i believe we will achieve the president's goal with hydropower. i would like to know what the department of energy is doing to advance the development of new hydro power systems? >> there are several things we can do. we do not anticipate building new, larger dams, but we can replace the old turbines in

existing dams with more efficient turbines that are actually friendlier to fish, and more efficient. we should look at what are called ron of the river hydro dams, which have far less environmental impact than a conventional-impaired we should also look at sites where -- conventional and jams. we should also look at sites where we store water. you can't capture the electricity. those are things we could look at. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. i would like to recognize the gentleman from colorado for five minutes. mr. darden march. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for your attendance. following up on some of the other members questions, and also some questions concerning the amount and, -- hit yucca

mountain, why now, what is your level of communication with the administration in japan regarding the defense? >> for well, i spoke to a minister, i believe it was yesterday morning, and offered him some of our services, our equipment, to which he expressed gratitude. we are certainly -- i did not noaa said its hourly, but certainly constantly in contact -- if i do not know if it is our lead, but certainly, if testily in comte -- constantly in contact. we are mostly going through channels to head this department is also communicating. there are many others. we are continuing to offer assistance to japan in any way we can, as well as informing

ourselves as to what the situation is. >> at this point, you are satisfied with their response to the situation? >> well, i cannot really say. if we hear conflicting reports, but i will go back and say japan is an advanced country that takes these things very seriously. i do not want to say anything more than we will stand by and help them as best we can do >> thank you. mr. secretary, -- can't do. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i've seen conflicting reports. do you or do you not support access of the strategic petroleum reserve? >> it is by access you mean that regarded it as one of several options that we could hold in our arsenal -- it is designed for severe disruptions in supply. the president has made it clear

that it is an option he can consider. there are other things that are happening right now -- of their oil-producing countries -- countries. >> what about production here? >> secretary ken salazar, as i understand it, two deep water leases have been issued. there is an increase in production in the continental united states, as i mentioned before, because the shell gas actually has shell oil unit, and people are beginning to -- we see an increase in the recovery of that. >> are you encouraging domestic production to help lower the price of gasoline in the

country? >> i think domestic production should be part of a coherent plan going forward in what we need to do with our transportation fuel. >> when is the president's plan to lower gas prices by this summer -- what is the president's plan right now to lower gas prices by this summer? >> first, domestic production itself does not turn on instantly. he even if you have a known reserve, producing more production from that reserve will actually take months to years. developing new reserves will take longer appeared >> so that should be reflected in price? >> that is true. if you know there are reserves coming on line, just as oil producing countries around the world are increasing production, that should have a calming influence on price. in the long run, 10 or more years.

>> the plan to lower gas prices by the summer is 10-12 years? >> we are working toward doing what we can in the short term, but i am also saying that this problem could emerge easily again because of the laws of supply and demand ahead >> what is the administration's plan to lower the price of gas by the summer? >> we will see a production can be increased. we are in conversations with other countries around the world on how we can increase production, and again, the strategic petroleum reserve option is on the table. >> but you are talking to the and secretaries of the department of the interior and agriculture to increase production here? >> i talk to them several times a week, but i think the licensing and things of that nature are in the purview of the secretary ken salazar, and they are in good hands.

>> i have additional questions on yucca mountain i would like to submit the. >> at this point, that chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you for holding the hearing, and for your courtesy in recognizing me. mr. secretary, welcome to the committee. the president in his state of the union says that if the united states is to complete, we intend to out-innovates, out- educate, and out-build the rest of the world. a big part of that from my perspective is the section 136 program, or the advanced technology vehicles manufacturing program. i have heard from members entities that have applied for funding under section 136, and i find in the development of that that none of them have been able to tell me it has been entirely positive experience, though i believe you and the department have been as helpful as you

can't. it is complicated, and it is a new law which is somewhat made difficult by the fact that you have to function under very, very limited time frames. in fact, i hear a complaint that the goal posts are constantly moving. this is perhaps the most serious, and it is, perhaps, the one that i hear most. companies feel that everyone enters into negotiations with the best of intentions, but they have no assurance they will ever get to the end of the road. for the record, please, when you provide a detailed summary of how section 136's process works? >> mr. secretary, i know that your budget request for this year is 40% less than what was requested in 2011, and that the 2011 request is 50% less than

the 2010 inactive levels. i understand our budget situation is serious, but this seems to be consistent with the president's out-innovates, out- educate, out built message. has the need to expand and build more energy-efficient vehicles gone down since 2010? yes or no? >> we certainly need to build more facilities. were you comparing the base budget? >> my concern is the section 136 process, and how it is working. when i am trying to find out is has the need for that section to be used for funding to read what, expand, and build more facilities to create the vehicles of the future gone down since 2010, so as to justify the

reduction of funding requested by the administration? >> it has gone down if you are including recovery act funding. >> say it again? >> if you are including the recovery at funding for 2010, if you include that, our funding request has gone down. >> i think it would be helpful to both of us if you would submit the answers for the record, but where i am concerned is that we find there is still a substantial need, yet we are finding the requests for funding are going down. what i am soliciting is your comments on this matter. last question, mr. secretary, could you, for the record, submit a comprehensive list of applicants for assistance under

section 136, and give us to each, or with regard to each, an indication of where they are in the process? >> i think the applicant -- i do not think -- at think we would be violating some confidentiality in the applicant's of less supply. i would be difficult -- of who has applied. that would be difficult. >> mr. secretary, i am not try to lay any traps. i recognize this is difficult, which is why i asked the use of this for the record. >> we can supply information in the aggregate, and anonymity, and things of that nature. >> i hope you understand, mr. secretary, these are friendly questions, the high style.

>> -- house the apparent >> thank you. at this time, i recommend the gentleman mr. pitts. >> you said it should remain part of our strategy? >> yes. >> in light of this, the administration has eliminated the office of civilian radioactive waste management, a waste -- to an office within the department of energy, especially created by statute. the administration has also shut down the yucca mountain repository program. there are concerns about the status of spent nuclear sleet -- fuel rods that have been in storage at the japanese nuclear plants effected by the recent

earthquake. in light of the defense in japan, and does the decision to eliminate the office of radioactive rays -- waste deserve consideration from the president? >> we should not confuse what is happening in japan with the need to have a long-term repository there are stages, once the fuel plotted -- respiratory. there are stages once the fuel rod is pulled. finally, you look for disposition. technology is changing. again, i do not want to preempt what the blue ribbon commission will say, but there could be potentially other opportunities to perhaps capture more of the

energy content of that shield. >> so, at present, how does the administration fulfilled its obligations under the nuclear waste policy act to manage and dispose of the inventories? >> pardon? >> audi you manage and dispose of the spent fuel inventories today? >> well, the department of energy is responsible for dealing with the spent fuel, and, again, we're asking the blue ribbon commission to give us advice. they will in june in a draft report, and how to proceed forward. i do not want to preempt what they are saying, so i do not really know what they will be recommending in terms of what you use with the fuel once it has cycled once. >> can you make any conclusion at this point about the safety

of nuclear power in the indebted states as a result of what you know about the incident -- of nuclear power in the united states as a result of what you know about the incident? >> i think, like i said before, is we want to look at what has happened in japan, and if there are these multiple events, like a terrible earthquake in na tsunami, and look at what we would be vulnerable to, and how they might compromise safety. first, we intend to look sixth digit safely at whether we have considered all possibilities. >> what is the department of energy doing in terms of monitoring and radiation omitted from the japanese facility? will you collect a exposure in? >> what we have done is we have air lifted airborne equipment that can help monitor.

we made that available to the japanese. we also have ground equipment that can pick up exposure levels, and the type of radiation of people on the ground. so, it is in japan now that we are looking to deploy that in various areas, so we can have a firsthand understanding of what the exposure levels are, and ar. >> you say you are cutting back in eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and reducing funding for the hydrogen technology program. will this decision increase or decrease gas prices in your opinion? >> the fossil fuel program -- that to me back off and say that because of the recovery act, there were a tremendous amount

of investments in clean coal technologies. because of that, we have given that $4 billion in investments. given the issues of fiscal responsibility, we thought that large investment can carry us forward for a number of years. that is where most of the investments in our fossil energy program has gone into, clean coal technology. we will still continue to make those investments because we believe that is a proper government role, to develop clean coal technologies. that is different than transportation fuel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> at this time, the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. thank you, mr. markey.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. you have many roles, one of them is banker in chief for the 80 industry. you provide loan guarantees for nuclear power plant -- becker in chief for the energy -- banker in chief or the energy industry. do you think this will make it easier for investors to make investments in energy? >> i cannot predict what wall street will do. the events in japan will cause everyone to look back had their nuclear plants. that is a good thing in the sense that you take this opportunity to look back and see what you are doing and are you

doing everything possible to maximize safety. >> along those lines, are you going to reassess, as the banker in chief, what you charge for the loan guarantees given the events in japan? >> the risk premium is a credit subsidy issue. >> are you going to examine it in light of what happened in japan? so you are going to re- examining? >> the omb is the part of the government responsible for that credit rating. >> should omb examine the risk premium? >> they will include anything happening in japan in their risk determination. >> the department has awarded an $8.30 billion loan guarantee.

three days before the japanese earthquake, i sent a letter to the nrc because i learned that one of its most senior scientists said that the design of the plant may be too brittle to withstand a strong earthquake and that it will open " chateau like a glass -- "shatter like a glass cup." when one of the nrc's won't technical people has raised serious concerns about its safety -- >> one of the conditions of a

loan is that the nrc has to grant approval of the license. the southern company and its collaborators do not get federal money until the nrc approves their construction. >> don't you think we should hold off on licensing new reactors, a new reactor designs, or approving new loan guarantees until we ensure that these new reactors are safe and we have learned the lessons of " she my? -- fukushima? >> we will take the lessons of fukushima and apply them. >> in addition to the loan guarantee you gave the southern company, the $8.30 billion taxpayer loan guarantee allows the southern company to get at $8.30 billion loan directly from

the federal financing bank at the department of treasury, the u.s. taxpayers. the taxpayers are fully on the hook or $8.30 billion for the -- for $8.30 billion. they were a 11 times over budget. if there is a default on the loan, -- they were a 11 times over budget. if there is a default on the lawn, what happens? -- loan, what happen? if you cannot get paid off, what happens? >> there is a complex agreement. >> would we all need the southern company like week in voluntarily ended up owning general motors if they cannot --

like we involuntarily ended up owning general motors if they cannot pay? >> i will have to investigate that. >> thank you, secretary chu for being here today. you can see the end in sight for the questioning. we appreciate your time being here. i wanted to talk to you about something president obama said in a press conference. that we should increase oil production in this country. he mentioned oil specifically. in his years in office, the president has not done much in that way, not much toward increasing our production of oil. when the president came into office, the gas was under $2 a gallon. we are approaching $4 a gallon in many regions. we have had the deepwater

horizon explosion on april 20 and we are approaching the one year anniversary. in moratorium was placed on the deep short -- deep water drilling off of the gulf of mexico. we continue to ignore our resources at anwar. i would ask if you have had any conversations with the president recently about expanding exploration and production of domestic oil? if you have had those conversations, what input our direction have you received from the present? >> the president has already spoken on this matter. he mentioned in a press conference that the production of oil in the united states was the higher -- the highest it has been since 2003. prior to the macondo accident, more land was made open to have access to drilling. that was an administration policy.

oil companies are seeing a lot of leases not fully utilized. the president has said they would ask if those companies are just sitting on those leases and not using them, we can explore mechanisms to find other you see -- other lessees who will use them. -- leasees who will use them. >> when the white house says production is as high as it has been since 2003, is that enough with the concerns in egypt and libya and what has happened in japan? are you convinced that we are pursuing the recovery of our own natural resources as it comes to oil in this country and the

regions we can go into offshore? do you think we are doing a sufficient amount at this level? >> we are going to have to do many things. increasing oil production is only part of the solution. the president says we only have 2% of the known oil reserves in the world. but we consume 25% of the oil. we can resume production in the united states, but it is not the solution. we are pursuing by elf will -- pursuing biofuels. >> have you had any conversations with the department of interior about the slowness of the permits being approved? >> no, i have not. >> do you intend on having become a stations about departments? >> the shallow water permits

were continuing. we have to deep water permits -- two the water permits. i assume that will continue. there are many sides hoping for drilling. -- sites hoping for drilling. at the present time, there are many sites open for drilling that are not being used. we will first look to those sites and get the oil companies interested. >> would you look to those sites being used first before you tap into the strategic petroleum reserves? >> the reserves or something to have continuing oil supplies in the case of a disruption. what is essential for our country.

that is the original intent. what you are speaking of are things -- even in a known reserve, it takes two or three years to bring up production. in unknown exploration, it takes five years. >> i yield back my time. >> thank you. i recognize the gentlelady from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman upton said we would have more hearings about what happened at the nuclear power plant in japan. i would like to ask you a couple of questions that have been on my mind since the terrible events in the last week -- of last week. at the fukushima daiichi plant, three reactors were operating at the time of the earthquake.

is that correct? >> that is correct. >> when the earthquake struck, the control riots shut down those reactors as it was designed to do -- the control rods shut down those reactors as it was designed to do. the cooling pumps were shut off. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> the backup diesel generators came on, as they were designed to do. those generators quit functioning because they went under the flood waters from the tsunami. is that right to your knowledge? >> the generators came on. later, some of them shut off. this is where i could not give assurances because we hear conflicting reports. the story i have heard is that

the cooling for the generators was at risk. they shut off for that reason. >> now they are trying to pump sea water in to keep the r ods from melting down. >> yes. and they have fire trucks. >> this is the concern i have. there were numerous bills say systems with this plant. it is 40 years old -- there were numerous fail-safe systems with this plant. it is 40 years old. because of the tsunami -- the plant was built to withstand earthquakes. because of the tsunami, we have this crisis about what to do. you cannot always plan for every exigency in these situations.

we saw this on this committee last year with the deep water -- deepwater horizon incident. we saw huge amounts of oil spewing out into the gulf. here is my question for you. i now the department of energy is putting resources toward reactor technology. there are people on this committee who live in california and earthquake zones. how can you ever have enough? with something so potentially destructive as these nuclear rods, how can we ever anticipate the worst so that we can be prepared for it? that is a tough question, but maybe you have some initial thoughts on it. >> what the department of energy

is interested in doing is developing tools to get a better handle on these moscow -- multiple interacting the events -- an earthquake plus a tsunami , a tsunami plus this or that. we have high performance computers and simulation techniques. this is one of the tools we can use to make any system we have, including a nuclear reactor, safer. including all the things we do now, we fly airplanes and do all sorts of things and there is ever increasing abilities to make -- ability to make these things safer. >> i was just in japan a couple of weeks ago with a congressional delegation. one thing that strikes you with japan is that this is not chernobyl's or a third world country with drinking think

technology -- this is not torn -- knocked charnel -- not chernobyl or a third world country with rinky dink technology. >> you are looking at a shot of coverage of the al jazeera english news network. we have been following their coverage and the associated press and other news organizations reporting an air attack has been launched against libyan troops. it was launched from u.s. navy vessels in the mediterranean. earlier today, the french began air strikes as well in benghazi, a rebel stronghold in the eastern part of libya. president obama is on tour in latin america.

he is expected to make remarks soon about the news coming out of libya. secretary of state hillary clinton attended an emergency meeting of world leaders in paris earlier today to deal with the ongoing situation in libya carried we will bring you her remarks again this afternoon on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] we bring you the head of the nuclear regulatory commission, gregory jaczko. he will talk about u.s. nuclear plant safety.

>> everyone has already given their opening statements. at this time we recognize you for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman and the ranking members and members of the subcommittee. i am honor to appear before you today on behalf of the u.s. regulatory -- u.s. nuclear regulatory commission. my opening remarks will focus on events in japan. i will also talk about the budgets. . i would first like to offer my condolences to all those affected by the tsunami and earthquake in japan. i want to publicly acknowledge

the tireless efforts, professionalism, and dedication of the nrc staff and other members of the federal family in reacting to the events in japan. this is just another example from my six and a half years on the commission of the dedication of the staff in protecting public safety. the american people can be proud of the commitment of protecting the american people and the federal workforce. we interact with nuclear regulators around the world. since friday, the nrc's headquarters operations center has been monitoring events unfolding in nuclear power plants in japan. since the earthquake hit, the north 1 plant has lost its -- number 1 plant has lost its cool

and functions. people have been deployed to japan and they are currently in tokyo. the nrc has been coordinating its efforts with other government agencies. this includes monitoring nuclear the missions and follow in their path. we are not expected to experience any harmful levels of radioactivity. examining all available information is part of the effort to analyze the event and understand its implications for japan and the united states. the nrc has been working with several agencies to assess recent research for the central and eastern part of the country.

that work continues to indicate that the u.s. nuclear facilities remain safe. we will continue to work to maintain that level of protection. u.s. nuclear power plants are built to withstand in our mental hazards including earthquakes and synonymous. even -- to withstand natural hazards including earthquakes and tsunamis. we take into account the most severe natural phenomena and for the surrounding area. we had a margin for error to account for the historical data's accuracy. this means u.s. nuclear power plants are designed to be safe based on historical data base on the area's maximum credible earthquake. our focus is always on keeping

plants in this country safe and secure. as this immediate crisis in japan comes to an end, we will look at whatever information we can gain and see if there are changes we can make to our own system. within the next few days, i intend to meet with my colleagues on the commission on the status and to began a discussion on how we can systematically and methodically review information from japan. we continue to oversee and monitor plants to ensure u.s. reaction the-u.s. reactors remain safe. the nrc will -- in short u.s. reactors remain safe. we hope this situation will be resolved soon so that japan can begin to recover from this terrible tragedy. i would like to give you a brief update on what we believe the current status of the reactors in japan is. there are four reactors that we

are currently monitoring as best we can. they are in the local team of number one site. -- they are in the fukushima number one site. they have suffered some degree of cord damage from insufficient cooling caused by the loss of of site power and the inability of the diesel generators to operate successfully calling the tsunami. we believe sea water is being injected with reported stable cooling. the primary containment is described as functioning. four unit north 2 -- for unit 2, core cooling is not

functioning. for unit number 3, there has been watered interaction. in addition to the three reactors that were operating at the time of the incident, a fourth reactor is a cause for concern. we believe there has been a hydrogen explosion in this unit due to act on covering of the fuel in the fuel pool -- expose in this unit due to an on covering -- due to an uncovering in the fuel pool.

for the two remaining units, we have an iaea report that the water level is down a little bit in the spent fuel pool. for the final reactor, we do not have any significant information at this time. recently, the nrc made a recommendation that based on the available information that we have, in a comparable situation in the united states, we would advise a wider evacuation range that has been advised. the ambassador to japan has issued a statement to american citizens that we believe it is appropriate to evacuate up to approximately 50 miles. the nrc is part of a larger effort and continues to provide assistance to japan as requested. we will continue our efforts to

monitor the situation with the limited data we have available. that provides a general summary of where the incident stands. with that, i will in my testimony and answer questions you might have. >> commissioner, thank you. we appreciate you being with us this afternoon. in the earlier question and answer period with secretary chu, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey refered to a finding relating to the design. he had indicated that mr. ma had some serious reservations about the design. i was curious. have you had the opportunity to review his concerns? have you come to any conclusions about that? >> we have done a thorough review of the ap-1000 design.

we have had a vibrant discussion among the members of the nrc staff. we have thoroughly reviewed the concerns by one of our staff members that you indicated. we believe, based on a thorough analysis that the design, going forward, can be acceptable. it is in the process of additional review. it is out for public comments. we do our designs almost like a regulation. we allow it to be commented on by the public. it is in that stage of review. we do not believe they are necessary to meet our strict regulations. >> thank you for that comment. i wanted to follow up on that. because of what has happened in japan, the focus is on safety as

it relates to nuclear energy. this is a state industry. historically, it has been a state industry. i know that in france and japan, a large percentage of their energy comes from nuclear. in the u.s. it takes -- you can correct me if i am wrong. it takes roughly 10 years to obtain permiting for a nuclear plant. am i in the ballpark when i say 10 years, or not? >> the process takes about five years to go through. we are not finished. we are getting near the end of our reviews. i like to think about this like when i went to college. everybody goes to college with the intent to graduate in four years. as you go through that process,

you take your classes. if you do well, you have a chance to get done in four. sometimes, a little bit sooner. some people take a little bit longer depending on how things go. we continue to work with the licensees and the applicants. we have approved -- improved our understanding of how to make the process work efficiently. this is an effort and something we have not done in a long time. it is a new process. we are moving at a relatively effective pace. we are keeping our focus on safety. >> in your testimony, you did say you evaluated these permit applications for a seismic as well as tsunami-type activities, is that correct? >> correct. we read you against a wide range of natural disasters. earthquakes, a tsunami, hurricanes.

>> with all of the attention focused on japan, everyone is focused on safety. we are certainly thinking about the japanese people. with more focus on safety -- i am not a nuclear engineer. i know that there is some technology based around sodium cooled reactors. i have been told that sodium cooled reactors do not have a possibility of a meltdown. these are smaller type plants -- maybe 50 megawatt tito 100 megawatt plant. i was wondering if you could comment on that technology. >> we do not have the technology for a sodium cooled design. it is a different type of technology than we currently have operating in this country. it presents its own challenges

when it comes to state operation. i would not want to speculate too much on what those challenges are. we have not gone to the specific review of one of these. in general, with a small reactor, a smaller energy output, usually the risks are lower because you have a small amount of radioactive material. sodium reactors present a slightly different technical challenges because of the way they operate. sodium has to be maintained in a liquid form. there are different types of risks and hazards you would have with that type of design. >> that technology was developed in the united states at one point. there are some countries that have at least some of these plants in operation. is that your understanding? >> that is my understanding. but we do not have any of those operating in the u.s.. >> that is my time. i would like to recognize the gentleman from illinois.

>> i want to thank you mr. chairman. chairman moscow, it is good to see you. -- gregory jaczko, it is good to see you. in illinois, we have more nuclear power than in any other state. constituents are asking a simple question. that question was summed up in a news headlines published on sunday. "should illinois be worried about its nuclear plants? "

" illinois lies within the -- what assurances can we give to people in my state with the high concentration of nuclear reactors and being in an earthquake zone? in your answer, can you please speak to the possibilities and the effect that a tornado -- we are in a tornado zone -- that tornadoes can have on nuclear reactors? >> congressman, at the nrc, we focus every day -- the dedicated men and women at the nrc -- work everyday to make sure the nuclear power plants in this country continue to operate safety. all of the nuclear power plants in the united states argued against a significant standard

for a seismic activity. we take what we can find out from the historical record from looking at the rocks and the theology and the seismology and we try to determine what is the largest earthquake that can happen in an area. from that, we do an analysis of what kind of fat that can have on the power reactor -- what kind of effect that can have on the power reactor. we actually go a little bit larger than that to make sure there are no uncertainties in our analysis. that is part of what we do for every reactor in the country. in the midwest, the seismic activity might be different in that part of the country that another part of the country. >> in japan, it was not just the earthquake that caused the problem. it was the tsunami that caused the problem. in terms of a tornado --

>> we look at tornadoes and all natural phenomena. earthquakes, synonymous. as you indicated, some sites do not experience all of those phenomena. we make sure we have captured all the natural phenomenon. in illinois, we take into account extreme weather event in illinois. >> i asked this question of the secretary this morning. the number one threat of nuclear facilities in this country is terrorist actions, activities, an acts. how is the nrc handling terrorist -- the threat of terrorism? >> we have a robust program that

requires nuclear facilities to ensure they can protect their plants against terrorists type attacks. that includes a strong program to do exercises once every three years to actually participate in a mock terrorist attack on the facility. we observe that and oversee that and use that as a way to -- >> once every three years? >> once every three years. we conduct normal inspections to make sure the security systems are in place and operating effectively. in addition, following september 11, we require all nuclear power plants in this country to look at some of the more severe kinds of impacts and effects you can get from a nuclear power plant from a terrorist attack or a natural phenomenon.

>> my time is almost over. on friday, no solely headed to dresden in northern illinois. i will work with some of your present inspectors. i will give them your regards. >> i appreciate that. we have some fine people at our power reactors there. >> i recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when did the licensing board returned is decision denying the yucca mountain application? june?f >> end of june. >> isn't it true that many had

already filed votes on that matter? >> there were preliminary views that we exchanged among colleagues on the commission. those were reviews that we used to inform our final decision making. we have not formed a final decision at this point. >> it is your position that you have not filed final votes? >> we have not reached a final decision on our act. i would consider votes to be more akin to prepared statements and remarks on the commission. the practice of the commission is to circulate prepared remarks on any of the things that we do. based on those circulated abuse, we work to see if there is a majority position. -- circulated those reviereviewe

to see if there is a majority position. >> those written statements are considered votes? >> they are considered votes, but they are not the final decision of the commission. >> you have written statements that are considered votes. when you plan to schedule a commission meeting? >> we will have a meeting and issue an order when we have a majority position. >> you have the statements that are considered votes, but you do not have a majority position. >> the terminology is on fortunate. the that is unfortunate. -- the terminology is unfortunate. >> is a minority decision

already rendered? >> there is no decision by the commission. >> was the nrc decision yours a long or one made by the full commission? >> that was a decision i made consistent with the budget prepared by the commission. >> what was your legal authority to do so? >> my legal authority was as chairman of the commission. the decision was fully consistent with the law. >> you are saying the budget zero it ed it out. but i differ with your authority to do that. >> i respectfully disagree. but when the decision to begin the clothes on the project -- >> begging to differ, it is a

state in federal position by law that yucca mountain should be open. there is no legal authority to close it. the only authority that has been rendered is the administration in compliance with majority leader read to pulled funding. -- majority leader harry reid to pull funding. but there is no authority by law. >> our actions are appropriate with any statutory authorization. >> you better be checking your facts. we are not done with this debate on the authority. we are told the courts may not rule on whether or not be commission's position is legally defensible. you should be -- you seem to be

preventing that vote to from occurring. >> the commission will act in accordance with any ruling by congress. >> thank you commissioner. i know you are busy. we talked about the president's budget and the proposals to go back to fiscal year 2008 for your funding. we both expressed concerns about the lay off of hundreds of workers, particularly after what happened in japan this is not the time to go after the regulatory commission. i share that. hopefully, that message will get to the folks. let me talk about a local issue. i believe all politics is local

-- politics are local. texas has a plant that is pending at the omb. they are receiving their funding from the tokyo electric power company, which presents one of the problems. they own one of the sites experiencing problems in japan. knowing what will happen with their potential investment, they have announced that they are having trouble finding new investors. part of it is the market. we have low natural gas prices. our country needs nuclear power, but we may not be able to get the investors. can you talk about plans in places like texas and how long the process has taken. i have worked on the congressional side for a number of years. we have expansion at the south texas plant southwest of houston.

just some information on how long it took for that expansion to go through a process and the office of management and budget. >> right now, the south texas project was one of the first applications we receive our new licensing. the review we do for that product will be focused on safety and security. that is our primary focus. we are nearing some significant milestones as we work to complete the actual design reviews for that type of reactor. the design review is out for public comment as part of our process. we anticipate having that back in and working to resolve the comments over the summer. if we resolve the comments successfully, we would move forward with completing the final reviews that are necessary, perhaps within 12 months. i want to reiterate that our

focus is on the safety and security of these designs. >> when you say it was one of the first applications, can you tell me the time frame it was filed in? >> approximately 2007. we had to suspend our review because the applicant in that case made a change in the vendor they were using to support the design. that took about 18 months to work through that particular issue on the part of the applicant. >> i know the concern for the whole world -- the whole world and our country but what we are doing is making sure what we are in -- making sure that we are learning from what is happening in japan. we do not have a problem on the gulf coast with synonymous or

earthquakes. we do have a hurricane ever once an ally -- on the gulf coast with tsunamis or earthquakes. we do have an earthquake or a hurricane everyone's in a while. every once in a while. >> on the gulf coast, there can be hurricanes, and other types of phenomena. we look at synonymous on the gulf coast and portions of the atlantic coast. -- we look at tsunamis on the gulf coast and portions of the atlantic coast. >> i would like your staff to

provide to the committee the technological advances in the current and proposed plants in the united states compared to what has happened in japan compared -- in japan with the tsunami. epic. thank you. >> i appreciate our meeting we had several weeks ago. we discussed yucca. we will have time to fully talk about that and ask a good number of questions. as you know, we both support safe nuclear power. we both support rigorous oversight of our 104 sites around the country.

i appreciate the visit i paid to the nrc several years ago and you the nrc operations center. i look at your day to day activities to make sure things are safe. can you tell me what the functions are of the 11 people you sent to japan and what they are doing and some of the information you might have received? >> the 11 in jewels we have -- individuals we have in japan are providing a number of services. they are looking at the nuclear reactors and helping to provide a good coordinated team to provide assistance to the embassy in japan. >> does japan have a similar operation like we have, similar to the operation we have in maryland? >> i am not sure. that in tokyo, right?

>> yes. working with the nuclear revelatory authority. >> you have recommended all americans to move valleys 50 miles away. what reaction have you received -- move at least 50 miles away. what reaction have you received? you talked about the four different reactor vessels and the status of the four. do you know where the hydrogen explosion was in the fourth reactor? >> we do not have that specific information. the spent fuel in the reactor has lost its cool drink and was producing some degree of hydrogen. that accumulated and led to an

explosion. >> was that explosion today? >> it occurred several days earlier. we can get you the exact date and time as we know it. >> as it relates to your budget, what is your budget for safety oversight as far as the nrc is concerned? >> 3/4 of our budget goes to reactor safety work. it is slightly over $800 million. >> i visited the two sides in my district. i welcome you and you indicated sites.two i welcome you and you indicated an interest to come over. >> most of our budget does go to our staff. it is mostly salaries and benefits. we have a small portion that is

contacting. 80% -- 60% is the story and benefit of the staff. >> do you have any reason to believe your proposed budget is not adequate to monitor the nuclear power plant safety systems? >> at this time, we believe it is a sufficient requests that will allow us to make sure the plants stay safe. as we continue to review the situation in japan, if it becomes apparent that we need additional resources to address issues related to essential issue in japan, we would have to come back and ask for additional resources for that. >> i was going to ask you. will you be able to determine that within the next couple of weeks? >> i will meet with the commission over the next several days. that will be one of the first questions. we want to systematically figure out what it is we need to look

at and what are the important sources of information. >> you do not have a reserve commission today to do that? >> at this time, i would say we do not necessarily have that. i would like to take a look before i make any conclusions. >> thank you for being here today. we look forward to working with you on a host of issues. >> i recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. mr. waxman. >> you describe a dire situation in japan. i want to ask about this. an official from the universe -- from the european union used the word apocalypse. what is your reaction to this comment? could japan be facing widespread devastation from a nuclear meltdown? >> i do not want to speculate on

what could happen. people are working diligently to try to address the situation. it is a serious situation, without a doubt. that is part of the reason i thought it was important for the agency to make the statement it did. we thought, in a comparable situation in the united states, we would have issued the evacuation instructions a larger distance away from the plant. efforts are ongoing to try to resolve it. it will be some time before it is finally resolved. >> you said you are recommending an evacuation of u.s. citizens within 50 miles. what are the issues causing you to make this recommendation? >> it is based on a current assessment of the site. because of the damage to the fuel pools, we believe there is significant chance for

regulation -- chance for radiation around the site. it is a backup to a backup safety cooling system. if anything goes wrong with that, it would be difficult for emergency workers to get into the site and perform emergency actions to help maintain the cooling. there is the likelihood that the cooling functions could be lost. they are lots, it could be difficult to replace them. that could lead to more significant damage to the fuel and some type of release. as a prudent measure of a comparable system in the united states, we would be looking at any evacuation to a larger distance. >> is being spent fuel problem -- you'll problem in unit 4, is that the greatest -- the spent fuel problem in unit for the

biggest concern you have? >> in this country, we would that be prudent step of issuing evaluation -- issuing evacuation's to a larger distance. around the reactor site, there are high levels of radiation. >> what would be the significance of that? >> it would be difficult for your emergency workers to get to the victims. the doses they would get would be lethal doses in a short. bank of time. that is what prompted the agency to make -- the doses they would get would be lethal doses in a short period of time. that is what prompted the agency

to make the evacuation recommendation. it is a difficult situation and one that needs to be addressed. >> you describe serious risk at these facilities. can you describe what are the highest risks and why? >> the efforts are to continue to keep the reactor school. the three reactors that were operating at the time of the earthquake. that is being done with a variety of different systems. it is done in a non-traditional way because they have lost their power and offsite power capabilities. the other risk is to be spent fuel that may be in the spent fuel pools of six reactors at

the side. keeping the pools filled with water and keeping the fuel cool is a primary concern >>. . >> what is the significance of a crack in the containment unit? >> what i was referring to is a crack in the spent fuel pool. is significant is that if there is a crack, there is a possibility of water draining from that pool and an inability to maintain water in that pool. >> what is the best case now for japan and what might be the worst case? >> the efforts are to continue to provide cooling of the reactors and to do everything possible to provide cooling to be spent fuel pools. i do not want to speculate on

what could happen. it is a dynamic situation. there are a lot of efforts being undertaken with efforts of the u.s. government in particular. this is a u.s. government response. the nrc is playing a small part. other aspects -- other assets are being provided to help and provide cooling and do what we can. >> thank you very much. >> mr. barton from texas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you may have answered some of these questions before. i apologize if i ask something that has already been addressed. my understanding is that these systems, the safety systems, at the power plants or at the reactors in japan are of a technology that requires active

back up and that the licenses you are reviewing now have a different system. if something happens catastrophic, the system automatically shut itself down and the cooling system can prepare itself without at the power. > those designs are similar o what we have in this country. we are reviewing new reactors that have a passive cooling system. it is not all of the designs we are reviewing. it is only two designs we're looking at. >> minor understanding remind understanding is that there is one nuclear power plant under construction. that is the southern company

facility in georgia. their safety system is a passive safety system. you will not have a tsunami in central georgia. you could have an earthquake. if there were to be an earthquake, it would automatically shut itself down without outside intervention. the coolant is a gravity-flow system that self-perpetuates itself without any outside power. is that correct? >> that is correct. the system used for that particular design does rely on gravity to initiate circulation of water through the reactor and then naturally circulates based on the heat flow. it will circulate without the use of outside power. there are other safety systems that do rely on the offsite power. >> in the instance of the one

new plant currently under construction, assuming the construction of the plant is robust enough that the containment is not destroyed by the earthquake, in terms of cooing the reactors in shutting down the reactors, they would be shut down and stay cool. >> i do not want to speculate on everything. we do not really know what happened in japan. we know that there was an earthquake and tsunami. we know a lot of things have not functioned as needed. i do not want to speculate on how that applies to any u.s. facility until we have a chance to do a systematic analysis. >> i am not asking you to speculate on what happened in japan. i am asking if an earthquake hit the power plant in georgia, based on your agency's review of their safety design, would it

withstand that earthquake? >> all of the plants we have licensed and are currently reviewing will meet strict safety standards for earthquakes and other natural phenomenon. for the existing plants, we believe absolutely that they can withstand an earthquake and meet the high standards we have put in place. we're still continuing our review of the new plants. we have not finished that. and not want to pre-judge the outcome of that. >> but you are allowing the plant in georgia to be constructed. you have approved something. >> it is a preliminary approval for a limited amount of construction activity. that is not related to the most significant safety systems at this time. >> in general for each plant in the united states regardless of where it is located, does it have a minimum safety requirement to withstand an earthquake? >> that is true. all the plants have the

requirement to be designed to deal with the kinds of earthquakes we would expect in about a 200-mile radius from the nuclear power plant. >> if it is in an area prone to earthquakes, it might have a higher requirement that a plant in a location that has never had an earthquake in 500 years. but they all have to withstand some earthquake design criteria. >> they all have to withstand what we think is the maximum expected earthquake from the historical record within about 200 miles. >> i am told the earthquake that hit japan is in order of the magnitude as the fifth most powerful recorded anywhere in the world. that is obviously a very powerful earthquake. in the united states, is the design criteria currently for that level of an earthquake? is it for an earthquake like the

one that hit san francisco in 1906? >> we talked a lot about the magnitude of the earthquake. that is not really what the nrc and looks up. if you look at the couple's daughter i have and think of that as a nuclear reactor, -- if you look at the cup of water i have and think of that as a nuclear reactor, -- >> this is going to make tv, make sure to do it right. >> if you think of this is a nuclear power plant, the magnitude of an earthquake would be nine -- like meeting the table. it makes the glass fiber. that is what we -- it makes the

glass vibrate. that is what we measure, this shaking of the power plant. the actual impact depends upon where i hit in relation to the glass. if you have a large and quick far away, it may not have the same impact on the site that is less but much closer. we look at all the different earthquakes that could happen in the region. we look at the shaking. we make sure it can handle a maximum of historical earthquakes in the region. we know we do not always know everything. we have done a lot of studies to look at earthquakes and phenomena beyond that kind of design earthquake. we have had the planets go back and look at if there are things

they can do to better withstand some possible earthquake no one has seen at this point. we have what we call severe accident programs. all of the utilities have procedures and the ability to mitigate that kind of severe event that may not have occurred in a particular region. it is a multi-layered system of defense. in addition to that, following september 11, we required all nuclear reactors in this country to pre-stage equipment that can perform this emergency last ditch effort cooling to the reactor and spent fuel. that is a variety of procedures and different types of equipment required to be at the reactor site. we have inspected the reactors to make sure they have that. that gives another level of defense beyond the design of the

reactor. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> if you do not mind granting reconsideration, i represent the nuclear facility. something was stated earlier that i believe needs to be clarified for the record. did you say that unit four in japan, that there was no water surrounding the spent fuel and that unit 3 was in danger of losing the water? >> we believe that unit for may have lost a significant inventory if not all of its water. >> and that unit 3 is in danger? >> we know that -- our information is limited. we believe there is a crack in the spent fuel line 43 that

could lead to a loss of water for that as well. >> the nuclear facility in my district sits on a fault zone. in 2008, the u.s. geological survey and formed the utility that a new fault had been found near diablo canyon called the shoreline fault. you are aware of the california w requiring review. the energy commission recommended independent studies be performed prior to applying for the licensor -- re- licensing. do you think we should take advantage of the information in california so that all plants can be analyzed while avoiding duplication? >> we have to make decisions based on the technical review we

do. i cannot get too far into some of these issues. we do have an ongoing hearing related to some of the points you have raised. we are prohibited from discussing those things outside the context of the commission. >> it seems to me and my constituents that having the best minds in our countryg together makes the most sense. first and foremost, this is about safety. seismic concerns also affect reliable generation as well. i hope the issue can be revisited. that is not to take away from the responsibility and authority of the federal agency, but to work with other agencies. i look forward to working with you in this area. >> we did host a workshop within the last year. it brought together a lot of the technical experts to have a discussion for the point you

said. we're always open to hearing information from any technical expert that can provide information to us. i want to make the point that the decision making has to come from our expert staff. my constituents have become increasingly concerned about the preparation for a >> they want to be assured that backup power will be available to prevent melting. both california reactors have been citing by the nrc where both diesel generators were down or there were problems involving battery power availability. citations were given to the utilities. should the nrc reevaluate regulations and increased penalties for infractions in light of the accident in japan as an incentive to force better compliance? >> we intend to do a systematic

look at any lessons we can learn from the japanese incident. i will keep your suggestion in mind as something for us to take a look at. >> i would like to address safety issues in the event of an earthquake and simultaneous accident. diablo canyon has a workable evacuation plan. there's only one way out of the town. the nrc has ruled it was non- credible that there could ever be multiple catastrophes such as an earthquake and knelt down at the plant. this is from them. the commission has determined that the chance of a bizarre siege rest of events occurring is very small. this is supported by record evidence. it is not based on statistics.

i want to ask the commission if they still believe the chance of this bizarre concentration events as being merely hypothetical? do you think this should be revisited in light of the events in japan? >> i will take your suggestion back to the commission. i would want to review the entire document. we do examine the possibility of earthquakes as initiating events for reactor problem. we believe we have systems in place that would prevent core damage. if there are subsequent problems, we have mitigating strategies to cope with those. i would be happy to take a look at the document in its entirety. >> that is what they said two

weeks ago no doubt in japan as well. there is enormous anxiety and sadness about the event there. in the last year, our three major sources of energy have all experienced tragic accidents. i do look forward to working with you and your commission on the number one goal of keeping our energy sources say. -- safe. >> we have not had any nuclear incidents in the past year in this country. >> the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. does the nrc still have the authority, in light of what has

happened in japan -- i assume you still have the authority to provide permits to continue the design implementation of nuclear facilities. >> the agency is an independent regulatory -- >> is there any delay? are you hearing anything that would set up -- i would expect some extension might be necessary. what would you suggest as a reasonable time frame for someone making an application? >> the process of reviewing an application for a nuclear power plant is very extensive. i think there will be some lessons that we learn, both the applicant and the agency. i do not want to get into speculating how long or surmising how likely to happen. we will do a thorough job to

secure safety. >> do you have some r&d money allocated for researching alternate uses for spent fuel rods? >> in our budget right now, we currently have significant resources for spent fuel and transportation. but we have a small piece of our budget that is looking at reprocessing and developing a framework for reprocessing, which would perhaps be -- >> i would like to know a little bit more about it. the scope to the yoke of mountains for a moment. i do not know -- let's go to the yucca mountain's for a moment. it was mine understanding that consumers are still paying on the utility bills the funds for

the project. is that accurate? >> i believe, but that is not an area that the nrc has authority over. >> but is that accurate? >> i believe it is paired again, i do not follow that very closely other than -- i believe it is. again, i do not follow that very closely other than what is in the news. >> what about shipping port. i think that was the first facility had in this country. when was shipping port open? >> i do not have the exact date for the initial license, but it was early on in the u.s. nuclear program. >> in light of their circumstances, will you be looking at some of the older facilities to see what new technology -- has shipping port been upgraded all along? >> is no longer in operation. >> what happens when the

shipping port goes out of operation? >> when they go lot of service, the reactors are decommissioned. we have the commission a large number of reactors in this country. >> ok. there was a story in the media that one of our naval vessels sailed through a cloud off of that?s -- were you aware >> yes. we did have indications that, in the early days of this incident, the reactor was going to reprocess that involves bending steam that accumulates in the reactor containment structure. that's the needs to be released in order to reduce the steam needs tohat ven be released and ordered to reduce the pressures. >> going through that, would

its have been avoided? >> that particular plume did not have doses that were particularly unhealthy. >> thank you. >> welcome. what intercity measures we require while you study the issue? in germany, they're taking in terms steps right now as well as switzerland, china, venezuela. are there any steps that you would like to announce that you will take and ensure that our plants are safe? >> we continue every day to make sure that the plants are safe. at this time, we do not have any specific actions that we think are necessary to add to the safety of the facility beyond what we do.

>> are there any interim advisory is that you will send out? 9/11, the government sent out some advisory's. >> there will be some informations summary that will characterize the event in japan. at this time, we do not have detailed information. of course, there are obligations within their existing licenses and there are other measures of the talk about common types of strategies as well as the efforts that we implemented after 9/11 to put in place these systems and procedures to ensure that they could provide emergency cooling to the reactor if necessary. >> about the ap 1000 design, you

said with your vote that, while it is clear that the shield building will provide an enhancement to safety, you're not convinced that such a design requirement exists? with what is going on in japan, would you consider that in order to consider adding that subtitle material as part of the process in constructing 81,000 plants? >> we will do it very thorough review of the information from japan. we do not anticipate getting a final decision on that until the least the end of the summer. i think there will be plenty of information from our review to inform that decision. >> as you know, i of the legislation that required the dissipation of potassium iodide to residents living within a 20- mile radius of a power plant

based on this study. we learned after chernobyl that this sheet medication can prevent cancers. the bush white house ignored my language into away hhs's par to complete the distribution guidelines. -- hhs's power to complete the distribution guns. do you think that the distribution of potassium iodide to resident within 20 miles of nuclear power plants is a common-sense effort to? >> the particular protective actions issue for any nuclear power plant incident, hopefully there are responsible is at the state and local governments. they have the primary on the ground responsibility on how to deal with an accident. >> but you're the agency of

expertise on the spread of nuclear materials. do you believe that it is advisable to look at a 20-mile radius for distribution -- >> the current policy of the commission is a potassium ideioe is and that could be considered -- >> the bush got line is that for 10 miles to 20 miles, people should just running or hide under their bed. is there a recommendation for new that they should look at potassium iodide in a 20-mile radius. -- radius? >> there are many protective actions that can be made. >> i do not think they have the expertise in looking at the probable risk assessment and the likelihood of having k i there. should we be retrofitting

reactors to ensure they can withstand much stronger earthquakes? the iaea wanted japan to years ago that their plans were not strong enough to withstand a stronger earthquake. should we be looking at retrofitting of the sentinel for a plant and other plants like it? >> the plan is largely designed to ground motion in the shaking that you would get at any facility. that is based on what we think are the most -- what are really the maximum earthquake that has occurred in any particular area. it does not directly necessarily mean a 7.0 earthquake is what we think is a maximum credible earthquake. i think that is the appropriate standard for the agency. we'll look at all the information we have from japan. if we have to make modifications, we will. >> i just think that maximum

credible earthquake would be reexamined after happen in new zealand, chile, and that earthquake zone that has yet to have an earthquake so that we have the proper protections. >> the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you. i am a physician so i will speak about it and some lucky position. in effect, there will be a post mortem done on that accident. folks will go in there and see what went wrong and learn from it to ideally keep it from occurring again. will there be people from industry invited to that video or only the academia and government? >> we have not decided how we will go about our review. but wanted to be systematic and

methodical. in our normal practice, we always reach out to stakeholders, not just to industry, but public interest groups and other members of the public. i would expect them whenever we do as part of this process will have public involvement. >> when entered the nuclear power plant near my home -- when i toured the nuclear plant near my home, as i recall, there were looking for a fail-safe mechanism to keep the generators running even if there was something dire that happened to the plant. i gather wood is happened here, if a tsunami because of diesel on the ground, it washed with the diesel and they were unable to run the generators. to reassure the folks here, my city, if you will, it seems that we have been proactive on the particular issue so that there is a back up to the back of to the back up to keep the generators running to pump the water in case -- you see where

i'm going to. >> i do not want to speculate on exactly what happened in japan. we really just do not know. >> i am channelling in cnn right now. >> all the diesel generators in this country are considered vital to commit -- vital equipment. they are designed to deal to withstand the natural phenomenon. that would be hurricanes, tornadoes, it's an honest, earthquakes, whenever the natural phenomenon that is relevant to the particular site. >> -- whatever the natural phenomenon that is relevant to the particular site. >> the backup generators to keep those cooling units running, we have proactively addresses this in this country and there is a way -- if hurricane katrina concerned it's my state, if one system goes up, there is another

system to keep it running. >> that is right. each reactor has at least two diesel generators in the event that one of them cannot perform its function. in addition to that, many sites have what we call a station blacked out diesel or some other type of electrical power supply that can function in the event that those primary emergency diesel generators are not operating. all the plans in this country have been required to look at presaging, other additional emergency equipment to deal with that of -- with this type of situation. >> you may have answered this next question. i was out of the room for a bit. clearly, we're talking not just a natural disaster, but man- made. do i understand that nuclear power plants have to be built so

that, if there was a terrorist attack and an airplane was driven into it, it would still be protected? >> the reactors have been required to the will to deal with large fires and explosions that could occur at the plant. some of that was related to the possibility of terrorist attacks with aircraft. the new designs are required to be will to withstand an aircraft impact on the site. >> the containment structure, even if there was a meltdown, how effectively can that contains structure keep it contained? >> that is the purpose of the containment structure. in the event that all of the city systems fail and we are not able to keep going to the court and it were to eventually have a significant fuel damage or some kind of meltdown, any radiological material would be

contained. >> if there is a disaster, there is a disaster and it is in the contempt request that is in the design goal. that is the expectation. again, if that were to fail, we have airbus programs to do -- to do emergency evacuations. >> since they did from the 1970's, i assume we have more robust protections. >> we have looked at all these plans are the years. in the late 1980's and early 1990's, we did a systematic evaluation of the plants to see how to deal with these kinds of very severe accidents. in some cases, the plants took the step of low-cost modifications that would deal with these more severe kinds of events. we have a lot of things that have been done. the plants are certainly not the same plants that they were when they were originally built and designed. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you for your courtesy. mr. chairman, i am sure you are

making a careful review of the events in japan. will you make such a review? >> we will, as we have a credible information. >> first of all, would you submit your plans to that, how you intend to going in to ascertain what happened. >> we certainly will do that. >> would you also submit to as for the record how nrc will go about defining the events in

japan and incorporating your plans? >> yes. >> does the nrc regularly use new information about the tip -- about the different types of risks? >> yes. >> would you provide for the record the process by which nrc assessment?isk assistan >> welle -- >> just for the record. i have a lot of questions. >> ok. >> does the nrc's licensing standards take into account the risk of earthquake or tsunami? >> they are corporate all of the natural disasters. >> i would note with distress, you probably remember diablo canyon a few years ago, right on

the fall, are you more careful about that than your predecessors were? >> we look at all the nuclear power plants in the country. we look at seismic activity from all of them. while not all plants are in high seismic areas, all plants experience some lower-level record activity. >> would you provide a list of the kinds of disasters for which nrc takes account of in terms of its licensing standards? >> yes. >> it is my and standing that one of the main problems in japan has been in adequate access to emergency power to keep the reactor school -- to keep the reactors cooled. do the nrc licensing standards

include adequate access to emergency power? are you satisfied that they do so? >> we believe that our requirements are very strong in this area. we continue to ensure that licensees have the corporate acquirement and that it operates successfully. >> you have an unholy mess on your hands, you and the department of energy, with regard to yucca mountain. is something like $17 billion spent on this. this administration opposes going forward. some of it goes into cooling ponds. you have suggested dry cask storage. you have a long-term plan to

address what to do with the infernal mess and how you will deal with the problem? >> right now, we're looking at a longer time frame for storage of spent fuel and we have at the past -- in the past. we believe that spent fuel certainly can be stored safely and securely with the existing system. >> but you do not have a plan for how you will deal with it. you're being sued by the electrical utilities because they are collecting monies from their ratepayers that are not being spent for the purposes for which they're being collected. you have double the amount that you can store in a single pool. that is running out. you are running out of pools in which to store it. as these plants close, you will perhaps lose the responsibility of the persons who are storing this thing. the stuff just keeps piling up.

is there a long-term plan anywhere in your agency, in the department of energy, in the office of the national budget, or any other office in the federal government about how we will deal with this internal mess? -- with this in formal mass -- with this infernal mess? >> i believe there are plans to look long term. we believe that the existing systems -- >> the answer, my beloved friend, is no. i say this with respect and affection. you're sitting on a very fine mess that nobody knows what to do with and each and one of the situations offers unique opportunities for terrifying

mischief to the broad public interest and to the people in the area. the cost of this whole sorry ass must keep going up. >> we agree with you, mr. dingell. how like to acknowledge the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, thank you for being here. yesterday was obviously a very long day for you. i appreciate you making yourself available to members on the birth -- on both sides. recently, any mill has been circulating that suggested a much higher level of radioactivity at one of the plants that had been read -- than had been previously been reported? >> we're continuing to monitor the situation as best we can. i am not familiar with the evil you're talking about. we do believe that, with one of

the fuel pools, there has been elevated radiation readings. >> when you say elevated, chest x-rays, cat scan, multiple cat scans? >> they would be lethal within a very short time. they are very significant. >> that is different from what we have been hearing before. >> its is certainly more recent development that we have seen these high readings. >> your good to provide us with a written testimony. you're good to provide us with some updates on the situation that is a very fluid situation in japan. would you be good enough to give us in written form what you have described to us as you finish

your prepared testimony this afternoon so there is no confusion over what -- when we " to reserve one way -- when we quote you? >> yes. >> to talk about the spent fuel pool being dried and the radiation being high. things were different from what i had been gathering from the press reports prior to coming in here. it would be good to see that -- what is factual and oil is not. >> our information is limited. we have been careful to only provide information that we believe is reliable. >> we are here to talk about the budget. do you anticipate submitting an addendum to the request in light

of the things that have happened this past week? >> that is something we will review at this point. i do not have an answer for you. i certainly will come back to the committee if we do. >> in a perfect world, what would be the percentage of this country produced by nuclear power? >> curve away, i would have to look, but i would take an estimate of about probably that number. i am not aware of any significant plant outages right now. >> so the percentage of electricity produced in america would not increase over what it is today? >> i'm sorry. >> in an ideal world, this country maximizing all the different energy production possibilities that we have, what percentage would be nuclear? >> it is not a to us to decide

that. i think the agency's responsibility is to make sure that, if there are no over-par plans in this country, but they continue to operate safely. right now, >> we believe with the budgets we have developed, we will have the resources to handle additional units if they are licensed. of theou're the king nuclear regulatory world, the full-decision-maker on the waste, what would be the ideal solution? what would you do?

>> i can get too much into that because we do have an ongoing proceeding with regards to yucca mountain. the job of keeping plants and the material that we regulate state is a job that keeps me awake almost 24 hours a day. let somebody else worry about those broader policy questions. >> thank you for your activities during this crisis. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you for your patience and endurance today. given what has happened in japan, this is a reminder to all of us that certifying new nuclear designs is a crucial and important task to make sure these reactors are durable and can be safely operated. i understand that the new certification process involves not only professional and accredited nrc staff, but there is also an aside, the advisory

committee that oversees the review and recommendations of the nrc staff. >> yes. it is an independent advisory committee. >> ultimately, you and your colleagues make your own independent judgment, correct? >> wright. >> i want to address the situation to get more on the record about concerns raised by my good friend ed markey about the westinghouse 81,000. -- westinghouse ap 1000. it was given due consideration by the nrc staff colleagues? >> i believe that they were. >> the members of the independent advisor a committee for reactor safeguards? >> as part of the review, they did specifically receive a

presentation. >> you and your commission colleagues? >> i do not want to speak for the actions of all my colleagues, but i person met with him and talk to him about his concerns. >> what happened after dr. ma made his presentation? he raised these concerns. what happened after that? >> 8 the adviser committee looked at this perspective and the king to their own conclusions. ultimately, no one disputes that the recommendations that he had would make the design safer. but we think that the design, as it is right now, would appear to meet our standards. but i would add that it was mr. ma who raised concerns with the previous iteration of the design. as a result of those concerns,

the agency did indicate to westinghouse that significant changes would need to be made. they did in fact make significant changes. i do not want to speak for him directly, but minor stemming of his position is that he thinks those changes are not necessarily enough to satisfy the initial concerns. >> but it is true that his concerns were put forward and the nrc team of reviewers, throughout these drafting, they evaluated it and over world his concerns. as did the subcommittee. this one through a process. i want to make -- i was to make clear for the record that there was concerns and there were address. >> i feel strongly that we created an environment in the

agency that people can raise those concerns and they can be thoroughly reviewed. i believe, in this case, that that is what happened. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from nebraska. >> thank you for being here. two power plants, mr. barton talk about one in georgia. but there's one in georgia, one in south carolina that sometime this year or earlier next year should be issued their combined construction and operating license. first, are there any discussions occurring to delay that col because of the japanese disaster? >> those two plants or potential plans that you reference are based around the ap 1000 design. a design is currently undergoing a public review process.

i expect we will get comments as a result of the public process related to the situation in japan. we will evaluate those as we get them. >> so that is yes and maybe no. >> at this point, we have not done -- we are following our normal path with the reviews of this point. >> all right, it sounds like there may be some uncertainty in the process. so we will get the combined operating license in 2011 or early 2012. >> we are going down the path of -- >> there is no reason to repeat, sir. i am curious of the other applications made for the early site permits. you know how many are sitting with you? >> we currently have one or two new early side permits in front of the agency.

>> are there any that have been provided an early site permit and are ready to proceed? i just want to know how many are in the pipeline. >> we have four applications -- we have applications in front of us for approximately 20 reactors. some of them are combined applications. then we have two early side permits that are not tied to an actual license for a plant. >> i have studied the lot the small modular reactors. i want to know what your personal opinion is, where the process is in reviewing the technology, how close we are to ruling out a pilot project. >> i like to think of the small modular reactors in three groupings. we have the small modular reactors that are very much

based on existing types of reactors that we have now, but smaller. for that type of design, we would anticipate, in the next year or so, and application for the construction of a small modular reactor. we also expect one or more applications with designs related to the smaller reactors. there is a slightly different technology. it is tied to the next generation nuclear plant project. that is an activity that is a little bit farther away, maybe 2013 when we will see an application. there is the least certainty within the non-traditional reactor types.

those are what i would call in the conceptual stage. i have not progressed the point where we have detailed discussions about possible reviews of applications. >> i appreciate that. i yield by 59 seconds back to the chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you being before our committee. i know there are some votes on the house floor so i will try to be brief. the secretary indicated that the united states helped japan doing some testing on contamination on the ground. you remember what type of tests are currently being done and have you found anything? >> when standing is that we are working to provide -- my understanding is that we're working to provide reading of

air variation. at this point, i am not sure the origin of that, whether from the u.s. assistance in japan or directly from the japanese. >> i would imagine there are a number of applications that are pending before your agency at various levels, awaiting decisions. do you anticipate it will go for the current pace? >> right now, we have no intention to change the approach we're taking. as i said, we will do a very systematic and the thought will review of the information coming from japan. if there is information that will require us to revise our approach, we will certainly do that. >> as with any crisis, there will be an evaluation in general just to see what lessons can be learned and i would imagine we will make sure that, if we learn

some things from how they did things right and how they did things wrong, if they did, we can incorporate them. just do not move for or retreat from energy production this country. >> i do not want to prejudge what comes out of it. if we get information that tells us we need to make a change, we will. if information tells us that things are good, then we will proceed as we are. >> ok. >> i would like clarification. you talked about the small modular or three or four existing categories. what determines what category a design would be in? is that based on actual applications or is that just general knowledge? >> it is the state of readiness of the designers and the vendors themselves.

>> the readiness of the vendors. ok. thank you. you have anything else? >> i would like to know, if in fact, over the last five years, can you furnish this committee infractions or violations or emergency conditions were the nrc had to send an emergency crew within the continental united states? >> we can certainly send you that. >> i want to know what level of responses and what level of missions you have dealt with over the past five years. >> we will send you that if

permission. >> thank you very much. mr. rush, you have three minutes. >> mr. commissioner, thank you for your time today. we appreciate it very much. we look forward to working with you as we move forward with nuclear energy and safety and i look forward to future opportunities. >> thank you. >> the hearing has ended. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> we are watching the situation in libya. you can see some of the footage being broadcast on the al jazeera network. some of the latest reports from the associated press are that the u.s. military has launched a missile attack against libya's air forces. it was aimed at sites along the coast and launched from u.s. naval vessels in the mediterranean. french forces began air attacks in the area of benghazi, a rebel stronghold in the eastern part of libya. we're hearing that muammar gaddafi has made remarks since the military strikes began. we will bring you his comments when they are made available. you can also follow updates on c-span.org president obama made statements of his own from brazil. he confirmed he had authorized

limited military action in libya and said the action has now begun. the first air strikes are aimed at damaging gadhafi's air defenses to allow allied forces space to enforce the no-fly zone. phase two of the mission will begin with planes flying over airspace near tripoli. in the mediterranean sea area and benghazi in the east. secretary of state hillary clinton met with world leaders in paris earlier today on the libya situation as the french president announced his country's initial military action against the country. she said the u.s. would contribute unique capabilities to help allies in force the u.n. resolution on libya. secretary clinton also said the u.s. would support the intervention in libya in the name of the u.n. her remarks and questions from reporters are about 25 minutes. >> before we began, i want to

say a few words about warren christopher. he was a friend, a mentor, and truly a diplomat's diplomat. he served our country with great distinction in many capacities over his long and very productive life. there are a lot of days in this job when i asked myself what warren would do. from the balkans, to the middle east, china, vietnam -- he helped guide the united states through difficult challenges with tremendous grace and wisdom. my thoughts and prayers are with his family and many friends and colleagues throughout our country and around the world. this has been a quick but productive trip. i want to give you a brief update and then answer your questions. let's remember how we got here. as you know, americans and

people around the world watched with growing concern as libyan civilians were gunned down by a government that has lost all legitimacy. the people of libya appealed for help. the arab league and cooperation council called for action. the international community came together to speak with one voice and deliver a clear and consistent message. colonel gaddafi's campaign of violence to get his own people must stop. -- against his own people must stop. the u.n. security council underscored this unity. the gaddafi forces face unambiguous terms. a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. that means all attacks against civilians must stop. troops must stop the offensive on benghazi and pull back from multiple locations.

water, electricity, and gas supplies must be turned on to all areas. humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of libya. yesterday, president obama said clearly that if gaddafi failed to comply with these terms, there would be consequences. since the president spoke, there has been some talk from tripoli of a cease-fire. the reality on the ground tells a very different story. colonel gaddafi continues to defy the world. his attacks on civilians go on. today we have been monitoring the troubling reports of fighting around and within benghazi itself. as president obama also said, we have every reason to fear that left unchecked, gaddafi will commit unspeakable atrocities. it is against that backdrop that

nations from across the region and the world met today in paris to discuss the ways that we can implement resolution 1973. we all recognize that for the delay will only put more civilians at risk. let me be very clear about the position of the united states. of the united states. we will support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of resolution 1973. as you may know, french planes are already in the sky above benghazi. now, america has unique capabilities, and we will bring them to bear to help our european and canadian allies and arab partners stop further violence against civilians,

including through the effective implementation of a no-fly zone. as president obama said, the united states will not deploy ground troops, but there should be no mistaking our commitment to this effort. today, i was able to discuss the next step with a full group and also conduct smaller, focused conversations with many of my colleagues. i met first with president sarkozy and prime minister cameron. both france and the united kingdom, along with other key partners, have stepped forward to play a leading role in enforcing 1973. we reviewed our strategy on the ground and discussed how we can work together most effectively in the hours and days ahead, and how we will work cooperatively with other partners including belgium, canada, denmark, germany, greece, italy, lithuania, the netherlands,

norway, poland, portugal, spain, turkey, as well as others that are not in that long list. i also had the opportunity to engage today with my arab counterparts. including form -- including the foreign minister of iraq, the secretary general of the arab league, the prime minister of catarrh -- of cutter -- of qatar, and the foreign minister of jordan. we have said from the start that arab participation in this is vital. participation has shown what that meant. it changed the diplomatic landscape. they have sent another strong message by being here today. we look to them for continuing

leadership as well as active participation and partnership going forward. i reiterated our strong and enduring partnership. the united states has an abiding commitment to gulf security, and a top priority is working together with our partners on our shared concerns about iranian behavior in the region. we share the view that iran's activities in the gulf, including efforts to advance its agenda in neighboring countries, undermined peace and stability. our golf partners are critical to the international community's efforts on libya come and -- our gulf partners are critical to the international community's efforts on libya. we also have a longstanding relationship with bahrain.

our goal is a political process that can address the legitimate aspirations of all of the people of bahrain, starting with the crown prince's dialogue, which all parties should join. of course, that process should unfold in a peaceful, a positive atmosphere that protect the freedom of peaceful assembly that insures that students can go to school, businesses can operate, and people can undertake their normal, daily activities. my counterparts share the same goals in bahrain. bahrain obviously has the sovereign right to invite forces into their territory under the security agreements. they have announced a major aid package for economic and social development in bahrain. we have made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing bahrain. as i said earlier this week,

violence is not and cannot be the answer. a political process is. we have raised our concerns about the current measures directly to the bahraini officials, and will continue to do so. with all of our partners, we have continued to discuss the urgent humanitarian needs are rising in libya. i think arab leaders for their generous contributions to aid refugees. we agree this will be a critical concern in the days ahead. egypt and tunisia in particular will need all of our support. the united states has made significant pledges of assistance, and we look to all of our allies and partners to join us in this effort. now, this is a fluid and fast- moving situation, which may be the understatement of the times. i know that there are lots of questions that people have about what is next and what will we be

doing. so, let me just _ a key point. -- underscore a key point. this is a broad international effort. the world will not sit idly by while more innocent civilians are killed. the united states will support our allies and partners as they move to enforce resolution 1973. we are standing with the people of libya, and we will not waver in our efforts to protect them. thank you. >> will u.s. military assets be engaged [inaudible] i am just wondering how active u.s. military involvement will be? >> i stand by what i said.

we will support the enforcement of 1973. we have unique capabilities to bring to the international efforts, and we intend to do so. >> do you know exactly what the arab leadership and participation is, and which countries are participating? >> i think the fact that we have representation around a table that we did today, and the very strong statements that were made by arab representatives, is extraordinarily important. i will leave it to them to announce their contributions. i think that is the appropriate way for any further information to be made available. >> do you expect more than them just being at the table today? >> yes, we to expect more. >> the reports coming from

benghazi now are that it is quiet and that the tanks have stopped. in general, president sarkozy said that the doors of diplomacy will open when the aggression stops. can you explain, number one, what that means? could the coalition actually engage with muammar gaddafi after what has happened? >> i will let president sarkozy explain his own statements, but our assessment is that the aggressive forces -- aggressive action by gaddafi forces continues in many parts of the country. we saw it in the last 24 hours, and we have seen no real effort to be part of the gaddafi -- on the part of the gaddafi forces

to abide by a cease-fire, despite the rhetoric. several of the speakers around the table said forcefully that they heard these words. they were heard publicly. they were conveyed privately, and they are not true. our assessment is that it is time for the international community to take action to back up resolution 1973. >> in terms of the goal of this operation, is it to protect civilians, or is it to remove president gaddafi from power? >> is to protect civilians and to provide access to humanitarian assistance. if you read the very comprehensive resolution that the security council passed, it is focused on protecting civilians from their own government. yes?

>> has bahrain or the uae giving you any indication that they would fly fighter jets? >> again, i will let individual countries make their own announcements. >> president obama stopped short of repeating his and your calls for gaddafi to step down. is there any way of this resolving itself with gaddafi somehow still in play, and what does this u.n. resolution mean for gaddafi's survival? >> those are all questions that, standing here, are difficult to answer. certainly, conditions will unfold as we begin to enforce this resolution. that will make a new environment in which people are

going to act, including those around colonel gaddafi. so, i think we should take stock of where we are and how we got here, and how many times the international community called on gaddafi to end the violence against his own people and to take demonstrable steps to end the aggression and pullback. and time and time again, starting with the first resolution, 1970, continuing through now, there was no evidence that he intended to do so, despite various claims that were made. if the international community is to have credibility in this show of unity that 1973 represents, then action must take place.

if you look at all of the possible permutations of what could or could not happen once the international community begins to enforce the resolution, there are many different outcomes, and i am not going to speculate on what will occur. >> you did not want to talk about what might come next, but what did the group of leaders today actually agree to do? >> they agreed to take all necessary measures, including military action, to enforce 1973. >> such as? >> those are operational details. i think it is understandable that we are not going to lay out every asset that has been pledged and every action that has been endorsed. but i think that coming together under president sarkozy's leadership today to reiterate the words agreed to in the security council were more than

just rhetorical commitment. they are being translated into very specific action. some countries are more public with their specific pledges to what they're willing to do, and others are looking at how they can best contribute. the conclusion of this meeting was, for me, very positive, because it was an unmistakable commitment to enforcing the 1973 provision. >> what is the timeline for gaddafi to act? >> as i said, french planes were in the air as we were meeting. there will be other actions to follow. there is no doubt that we're going to begin to enforce the resolution.

>> for more than 40 years, gaddafi has run that country and been granted an international outlaw. what are the compelling reasons today to suddenly act? >> there are three compelling reasons. number one, with all of the activities that colonel gaddafi engaged in in the past, we in the united states had a very clear interest in trying to contain him and prevent him from taking both the direct and indirect actions against us and our people, as well as many others. following his decision to give up nuclear weapons in 2005, when it was finally resolved, it appeared that there might be a new opportunity from him to new opportunity from him to join